Throughout the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, we have seen case after case of Democrat politicians proclaiming the necessity of wearing masks and adhering to social distancing/staying at home rules so that we might “protect” our fellow citizens, all the while they are themselves not even coming close to adhering to the very rules they set for everyone else.
This, totally expectedly, is no different for the occupier of the oval office Joe Biden, who was seen visibly not wearing a mask when he visited the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday evening, despite the fact that he had, earlier in the day, signed an executive order mandating the wearing of masks on federal property (as well as in public transit systems like airplanes, trains, etc.).
The occupant had even tweeted earlier on Wednesday: “Wearing a mask isn’t a partisan issue – it’s a patriotic act that can save countless lives. That’s why I signed an executive order today issuing a mask mandate on federal property. It’s time to mask up, America.”
All bullcrap, of course, seeing as masks have not demonstrably saved lives and that the vast majority of people in all 50 states routinely wear masks. Even the state where the least amount of people wear masks, Wyoming, sees roughly 80% of people wearing them, so the premise that Americans were not wearing their masks for the most part is an outright lie.
What also makes that bullcrap is that he, himself, chose not to wear a mask in a place where he mandated people wear masks.
Now, the liberal might argue: “But Biden was vaccinated, so he doesn’t need to wear a mask.” Really? You don’t need to wear a mask after you’ve been vaccinated? Because the oh, so revered Dr. Anthony Fauci proclaimed to the world in his "infinite wisdom" that people still had to wear masks even after people are vaccinated. In fact, he proclaimed that not a damn thing would change with regards to the Chinese coronavirus guidelines even after most people got the vaccine. This is the first I’m hearing that one does not need to wear a mask after they’ve been vaccinated.
Besides, it’s not like Biden went the entire time without wearing a mask, either. Someone who tweeted a C-SPAN feed of Biden at the Lincoln Memorial noted that he “wore his mask immediately prior to this and put it back on as soon as he finished his TV hit.”
So he only took off his mask for television? Isn’t that counterintuitive to what he had been pushing? Beyond the outright hypocrisy of not wearing a mask on federal property immediately following his signing an executive order banning precisely that kind of behavior, isn’t it idiotic to not wear a mask specifically for television?
I could have sworn there were people who demanded President Trump wear his mask on TV to encourage Americans to do the same (because apparently, we all have to do what the president does), so what’s the point in Biden taking off his mask specifically for television?
Furthermore, Biden addressed the media without wearing a mask, despite the fact that all the media people present were wearing their masks.
And even more than that, Biden’s family, who were with him at the Lincoln Memorial (seeing as this all took place at the occupier’s illegitimate inauguration, so it makes sense that they were there) were also visibly not wearing masks on federal property.
Another aspect that is also hilariously hypocritical is that Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in her first press conference: “To combat the deadly virus, the [occupier] launched his 100-day masking challenge, asking Americans to do their part and mask up for 100 days. He’s doing his part as well, issuing a mask mandate that will require anyone visiting a federal building or federal land, or using certain modes of public transportation to wear a mask.”
The hypocritical aspect of this, you ask? She said this at a press conference without wearing a mask herself. President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany was repeatedly hounded for not wearing a mask during press conferences.
Again, not a bit of this is unexpected. Given the multiple cases throughout the many months of Democrats demanding and even forcing people to wear a mask, social distance, not leave their homes or not going places that are outside of a certain mile radius of their homes, and then going on to ignore literally ALL of those things themselves, it’s not surprising to see the current “king” of the Democrats himself being this hypocritical.
And you would think, being the “president of the united states” (no, I’m not capitalizing the words for Biden, even if they are in quotation marks. He doesn’t deserve even that much), and particularly being as old as he is, they would want him to take care of himself and wear his mask as often as possible, right? After all, even in this article, we are told that “masks save lives” and are an effective tool against this “deadly virus”, so why wouldn’t Biden wear his mask 24/7, particularly given the position he illegitimately holds?
All of this to show to everyone, for the millionth time, how much of a farce this whole thing is. No, I’m not saying the virus is a hoax, but what everyone says about the virus is a hoax. It’s not a particularly deadly virus (99.7% of people survive it and that’s on the low end) and the policies that have been put into place to “deal” with the virus have not demonstrably done anything to actually protect people’s lives.
Particularly regarding the lockdowns, which I consider to be the worst and most egregious policy that has been put into place in most states, as it not only is ineffective with dealing with the pandemic (the WHO said as much), but it also has killed tens of millions of jobs and ruined countless small businesses, all the while big corporations benefited tremendously from it (that vaunted crony capitalism that socialists claim they fight against but often find themselves participating in it gleefully).
Tyrannical and moronic, at best, governors have choked/are choking their states to “protect” them from this “deadly virus.”
To repeat an analogy I have previously used, it’s like asphyxiating someone to save them from the mild poison that they accidentally drank. That is, of course, assuming that these governors are doing what they are doing because they are stupid but trying to save people, not evil and without a care in the world about what happens to people.
For crying out loud, Cuomo, Whitmer and even one of Biden’s new cabinet members (that ugly tranny) have all either directly ordered sick people be placed in retirement/nursing homes or have successfully convinced their governor to put sick people in retirement/nursing homes (and the tranny even pulled his own mother out of a nursing home to save her from what he KNEW would lead to certain death for residents of those homes, showing how utterly evil some of these people, particularly that person, are).
They ALL knew what would be the effect of putting sick people in nursing homes, demonstrating how utterly undeserving of their jobs they are. At best, they are massive freaking morons who don’t know basic biology or common sense and didn’t know what would happen if you put sick people with those whose immune systems are not what they used to be, and at worst, they are actual serial killers who committed relatively small genocides against their states’ elderly population as if this was Logan’s Run.
Either way, such people should not be in places of power and given the events of the 2020 election, I hardly think many of these people are even legitimately in power.
In any case, once again, it’s not even a little surprising to see the Democrat occupier ignoring the very mandate he signed just hours prior. The only thing that’s surprising, perhaps, is the speed at which he broke his own rules. I imagine the other Democrat hypocrite tyrants at least took a while for them to have broken their own rules (either that, or it just took a while for them to be caught, which is a possibility).
Of course, it certainly won’t matter and the fake news media will cover for the guy like they had been doing over the last year and a half and throughout the time he was the Vice President, but it’s worth pointing out the sheer hypocrisy and b.s. of the Left. People notice this stuff and that matters, in my opinion.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Unfortunately, today is the inauguration of this country’s first known occupier of the oval office, coming as a result of the Establishment working really hard to defeat Trump. Republicans always hated their most popular leader since Reagan and wanted revenge against the people who elected him and re-elected him.
However, there are a plethora of reasons to believe (and very well know) that Joe Biden is not the rightful winner of the 2020 election, neither is he deserving of the title of President of the United States. One of the reasons is the fact that President Trump’s approval rating remains just about the same in recent time as it was during the days, weeks and months leading up to the election.
On his way out, President Trump enjoys FAR better approval ratings than the last Republican president, George W. Bush, who saw historically low ratings of 22% as he was leaving office in 2009. Even Pew’s obviously biased poll showing Trump at 29% approval is still considerably higher than Bush’s, but like I just said, that one was obviously biased and an outlier.
Even NBC’s poll showed that he was around the same (40%) over the last few weeks and days as he was throughout most of his presidency.
And Rasmussen shows that, at least for the last full day of Trump’s presidency, the last real president enjoyed an approval rating of 51%.
Further, despite how undeserving the Republican Party is, Trump is leaving the GOP stronger than Bush did, with Democrats holding a very slim majority in the House (plenty of people assume there will be a red wave in 2022, but one can assume that Democrats will look to cheat in that election as well, so I don’t know how certain it is that Republicans will flip Congress, nor am I certain that that would in any way be a better outcome than what we have now if RINOs will replace Democrats) and only holding a majority in the Senate because of Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote (no, Manchin isn’t going to be a savior for conservatives. He’s going to be a good little boy for the Democrats).
And no, I won’t call Kamala Harris the Vice President because she was not elected to such a position, just like Biden was not elected to be president.
By contrast, the Democrats held a 79-vote majority in the House after the 2008 elections and a 59-41 majority which turned into a 60-40 supermajority with then-Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter switching parties (guy was obviously a RINO but at least was honest enough to switch to the party which most closely aligned with his beliefs).
Of course, what is far more important to me is the fact that Trump’s approval ratings remain about the same as for most of his presidency, even after the Capitol Hill riot. Everyone on the Left was, obviously, blaming Trump for it (something which would have had more of an impact if they hadn’t spent the last four years blaming Trump for literally everything bad) and some establishment Republicans were doing the same thing, but the American people, whom elected Trump to a second term, did not blame him for it at any capacity.
Whether or not they believe the riot was acceptable is irrelevant. Those who believe it was a bad thing do not blame Trump for it and rightly point to his speech calling for a peaceful and patriotic protest as proof of his innocence (as well as the fact that Antifa demonstrably had a hand in inciting the riot in the beginning). Those who believe it was a good thing (or at least an acceptable thing) obviously do not blame Trump for it for some of the same reasons as the other people and because you wouldn’t blame someone for something that you consider to be a good or ok thing.
This much is reflected in the polls: the American people LOVE Trump and we re-elected him. It doesn’t help the Left that they jumped the gun, again, and chose to illegally and unconstitutionally impeach Trump (without witnesses, evidence or the ability for him to defend himself) as well as withholding the delivering of the impeachment articles to the Senate, not to mention the clear instruction to social media to pull the trigger and ban the president and many of his supporters from their platforms.
Even if people wanted to blame Trump for the riot, the Left pulling all this crap and targeting all political dissenters as obviously as they are does not help them gain any favorability from the people. Not that they care at any rate anyway. They have proven to themselves (perhaps not for the first time) that they don’t actually need the support of the American people, just the power in certain places.
But it means a lot to me that the American people are on Trump’s side. We just have to figure out a way to turn that to action against the Establishment. May God curse the Washington Establishment and foil their wicked schemes.
1 John 2:18
“Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that this is the last hour.”
I am no stranger to citing my own work in the past, but this is the first time that I base an entire article around an article that I have written previously. The reason for this is simple and you will see soon enough.
The article in question is the following: “Climate Change Will Be Unstoppable In 3 Years, According To MSM.”
In that article, I pointed out how a UK Independent article talked about what a prescient need it was for countries to adhere to the goals of the Paris climate accord and how we just have to make “significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or face the prospect of dangerous global warming.”
The article cites “experts” who claimed that “’entire ecosystems’ were already beginning to collapse, summer sea ice was disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs were dying from the heat.”
I don’t expect anyone reading this to remember that I literally wrote that verbatim in the first article, and even back then, I knew what a load of crap this all was.
First, of course, was the fact that “entire ecosystems” were “already beginning to collapse” which is nonsense.
Then, there was the “summer sea ice disappearing in the Arctic” which has been proven false since then. In another article, which is far more recent, I mentioned that the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) confirmed, back in November of 2018, that “glaciers have largely maintained their area since 2012.” And while glaciers are a bit different from summer sea ice, glaciers at least make up some part of sea ice and there has been no proof that they are melting at worrying rates (certainly not at the rates the Left claims).
Finally, there’s the “coral reefs dying from the heat” part, which I did not cover in the original article. However, that one is overhyped baloney as well. Corals do, indeed, die amidst heat waves because their hard outer skeleton causes them to basically be cooked alive. However, as with other creatures, corals are capable of adapting for survival. And back in late 2019, scientists found corals which were previously thought to have died off completely as a result of heat stress.
According to Breitbart: “A quarter of the coral cover of Spain’s Columbretes Islands was lost to a particularly extreme heat wave in 2003… But the researchers found that in 38 percent of the impacted colonies, the polyps (miniscule creatures which make up the corals) had devised a survival strategy: shrinking their dimensions, partly abandoning their original skeleton, and gradually, over a period of several years, growing back and starting a new skeleton. They were then able to gradually re-colonize dead areas through budding.”
So the idea that the only way for coral reefs to be saved is by significantly reducing greenhouse emissions (that is, your emissions, not that of the ruling class) is erroneous. God created His creatures to be able to adapt to different situations. He guides even the ones which have no brains and function entirely through “instinct”, if you will.
Like with the regrowing fauna and flora in Chernobyl, God created nature to be adaptable (micro-evolution is a concept far more believable and observable than nonsense like species-to-species evolution). Likewise, God created corals to be able to survive and adapt even things which normally would kill them off. It takes time, sure, but the reefs are regrowing and it certainly has nothing to do with the greenhouse gas emissions of any or all countries.
At any rate, let’s get to the meat and potatoes of this article.
I think you already know roughly why I’m bringing up this old article of mine. That UK Independent article predicted that we had three years to reverse course or we would begin to see some catastrophic and dire effects of global warming. Essentially, that we had three years (thankfully, AOC found another nine years for us to live, probably using Dominion machines) to deal with “man-made climate change” or we would die.
Well, it’s been three and a half years since that prediction and we are not, at any capacity, under threat of catastrophic global warming. We’re still in winter and the temperature outside my house is around the mid-40° F; Miami, Los Angeles and other sea-side cities are not inundated; the ice caps are not melting; the polar bears are fine; the coral reefs, as in the case of Spain’s, are regrowing to one extent or another; and, perhaps most flabbergasting of all for these morons to hear, entire ecosystems are not collapsing.
Not a single one of the things that these grifters have predicted has come to pass. And now, we can add another thing to it.
In June of 2017, far-Left “experts” predicted that we only had three years to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions worldwide else we would be at a “point of no return” regarding global warming. Fast-forward three and a half years and you have articles like “World is not adapting swiftly enough for climate crisis impacts: UN.” Well, seeing as we only had three years left to live three years ago, I hardly think there’s much point in adapting to it now, is there?
Three and a half years after they claimed we only had three years to deal with emissions and they are still pulling some of the same bullcrap from before. This is not at all surprising, of course. Back in 2006, Al Gore made a similar prediction that we only had 10 years to deal with climate change. The expiration date for that was nearly five years ago, but they keep going back to the “Doomsday Clock” well.
The UK Independent article claimed that, since the 1880s, the temperature of the world has risen by one degree Celsius, supposedly because of human activity and greenhouse gas emissions. Thing is that none of the things that the Left typically blames for climate change – cars, planes, A/Cs, etc. – were widely available back in the 1880s. If the change began from that point forth, something had to have caused it and it can’t have been the typical things which produce emissions.
Further, over the three and a half years since that article, I have repeatedly covered the fact that the world has seen numerous periods of temperature changes, from increase to decrease, at different points in time. The world’s temperatures were seen rising during the Roman Warming Period, the Medieval Warming Period, and most recently, the Modern Warming Period. And, again, the Left cannot blame the typical things that they blame for the warming periods which took place before those things were invented.
It is simply a demonstrable lie that humanity has any sort of say in the temperature of the world. This is as true today as it was three and a half years ago or any period before then as well as any period from this point on. The only reason the Left peddles this crap is because it’s one of the best ways for them to try and convince people to give up their rights and freedoms. Well, at least until the Chinese coronavirus came along. We have far more willingly given up our freedoms in a year than we had over the last few decades since the Left has been peddling this unscientific nonsense. And it didn’t even take a full year to accomplish that. We gave up our freedoms pretty much the second we were asked to, under the belief that we would remain safe as a result.
Ben Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We gave up that essential liberty for safety from a virus which is only temporarily bad. What does that say about us?
At any rate, mark that prediction as yet another one which, expectedly, did not come to fruition. Three and a half years after we only had three years to deal with climate change and we are perfectly fine.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
I know that I recently wrote an article discussing this very same topic, but Campus Reform recently published a video where their reporter, Addison Smith, asked some college students at the University of Virginia their opinions on social media censoring President Trump, big tech banning Parler, and if big tech has gotten too powerful and should be broken up or regulated.
Smith began by telling students: “There’s been a lot of talk of censorship in the news lately, obviously Trump got his account permanently suspended from Twitter, Parler getting completely de-platformed, dropped by all their vendors, dropped from the web server for [not] enforcing certain censorship laws. Do you support the decision that they made to de-platform Trump and take Parler off the internet?”
The first student who speaks said: “I do support it. I know a lot of people are saying that it violates their… first amendment [rights]… These companies are private companies and they can do whatever they want.”
Keep what this guy said in mind because it will be important.
Another student said that she believes that “as private entities, they do have the ability to choose who’s on their platform, so yeah I think it’s okay.”
A different student who seemed to be a bit more conservative said: “I struggle with it because… Twitter is such a platform where the president can easily talk to everyone and that was [the] way that he did build his entire campaign, but I also understand that Twitter’s a private company and they can do whatever they want, but with Parler being kicked off, I don’t know. I personally hate that they kicked Trump off Twitter just because he’s the president. It just feels like they’re trying to shut down conservatives. And they feel like Donald Trump’s this huge dictator but he’s the one being silenced.”
An interesting take here. On the one hand, she acknowledges that Twitter is a private company and even repeats the talking point of the Left (when it’s convenient and we’ll get to times when that talking point is inconvenient for them) that “they can do whatever they want” similar to that first guy. Again, please keep this “point” in mind.
Another student, who also appeared rather conservative, said: “My concern would be who sets these censorship standards, and are they biased, right? And if they are biased, then that is something that we should be against.”
Short, but brings up a good point: who gets to decide the standards of free speech? Who gets to decide what is allowed and disallowed? We all know that Twitter doesn’t care about the incitement of violence because Leftists had been inciting violence all summer of last year, defending those who would attack police officers and innocent civilians. And like I pointed out in my last article covering this topic, even terroristic threats made by famous (and, therefore, influential, to an extent) people like Madonna were no issue whatsoever since she never received any punishment for her incitement of violence.
The Leftists who run big tech are the ones who decide these censorship standards and, obviously, they are very much biased. The only people who support their actions are fellow Leftists (like some of these indoctrinated college students) who are happy to see dissenting conservative opinions being punished and banned, never once believing that their own opinions, should they be considered “wrong think” by the Twitter overlords, could also be subjected to the same treatment.
One example was of a feminist who had been kicked off of Twitter for her stance against the idea that transgender “women” were actual women. Feminists tend to be Leftists, but even they get censored for their views if they hold “wrong think” ideas.
At any rate, Smith further pushed on the idea that Twitter is a private company, asking the students about it because something conservatives are always told is “go make your own Twitter.” Well, some people did go and made their own Twitter, Parler, but it was shut down by Google and Apple, as well as Amazon who ran Parler’s servers.
What, then, are people supposed to do? Create their own Google, Apple and Amazon? Create their own internet? This is how ridiculous and illogical the arguments are. Any competition these guys face gets eventually bought (Facebook owns Instagram, which used to be fairly competitive) or crushed, so there is no real way to compete. Which is why it’s ludicrous for any conservative to support big tech, seeing as monopolies kill competition and free markets.
The conservative girl (who initially said she struggled with the situation) repeated what she had said earlier, how the Left claims that Trump’s the dictator yet he’s the one that gets silenced.
The first student interviewed, who initially said he had no issue with what Twitter had done, charged that Trump and the people in Parler were “inciting violence and saying a lot of dangerous things, so I think that these companies did the right thing by taking them off so they couldn’t do that anymore.”
Of course, there are two problems here. The first is that Trump and the people at Parler were not inciting violence. Trump never incited violence on social media or in any of his speeches. He very specifically called for peaceful and patriotic protests at the Capitol, not calling for rioting at all. He also called for the people protesting to go home within an hour of the riot happening and has repeatedly condemned the actions that occurred.
The second problem is that Twitter and social media platforms don’t have an issue with incitement of violence because, again, the Left was inciting violence all of last summer pretty explicitly, and Madonna incited violence by making a terroristic threat back in 2017. So even if it was true that Trump and people in Parler were inciting violence (which is not true and a lie told by the fake news media), it’s not like big tech enforces that rule objectively. They punish conservatives whom they claim incite violence, but not the people who actually incite violence when such people are Leftists and targeting conservatives.
At any rate, this article is getting a tad long and I’ve only really covered roughly half of the 5-minute video (below) from Campus Reform, so I would like to get to an interesting point.
At one point, Smith asks if the students think big tech is too big of a monopoly and if we should break them up or regulate them in general.
The reasons I think this is an interesting point are two-fold. First, despite the fact that the students were rather mixed in their response to social media and big tech censorship, they ALL agreed that it’s too powerful and should be regulated at some capacity.
The second is the following: One of the students said: “I think there does need to be more government regulation in order to prevent them from doing whatever they want.”
This response floored me because this was from one of the people who earlier said “These companies are private companies and they can do whatever they want.”
Okay, so if private businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, then BP was allowed to spill as much oil as they wanted in the Gulf of Mexico? I understand that it was just an accident, but would and should have they been allowed to do that? After all, private businesses can do whatever they want, right?
Should manufacturers not pay their employees anything and use forced slave labor? After all, private businesses can do whatever they want, right?
Should Twitter and Facebook be allowed to hire hitmen to kill people they don’t like? After all, private businesses can do whatever they want, right?
And this is where that idea is inconvenient to the Left. They use that argument because the targets are conservatives, but when the target is anyone or anything else, they abandon that argument super quickly. They believe that businesses shouldn’t be allowed to pollute all they want, but they also believe that private businesses should be able to do whatever they want?
Now, a liberal might argue: “Just because businesses can do whatever they want doesn’t mean they should do whatever they want.” Oh, so you support government regulation to make sure that Twitter can’t unfairly ban speech just because they don’t like it?
And, by the way, don’t buy into the notion that “private businesses can do whatever they want.” That has NEVER been the case in the history of businesses. For as long as governments exist, they have been regulatory powers over businesses, big and small. Private businesses have never been able to do whatever they want, particularly after a Dutch megacorporation quite literally owned portions of India, having access to an actual military force.
So the argument that “private businesses can do whatever they want” is a false premise.
But still, it’s rather interesting how someone argues “Twitter is a private business and can choose who they have on their platform and can do whatever they want” while in other places also argue that oil companies, despite their private ownership, should not be able to pollute as much as they want or employ business practices which would violate the 13th amendment. The government regulates such businesses, to the glee of the Left, but it’s too much for the government to regulate big tech?
That’s not even an argument they make, to the admission of that one student. That student also wants big tech regulated by the government, despite his earlier statement that private businesses can do whatever they want.
You cannot hold both positions at the same time – they are contradictory to one another. Either private businesses can do whatever they want, so there should be absolutely no regulation whatsoever against them, which would require the abolishment or ignorance of the 13th amendment alongside all other human rights, or they can’t do whatever they want, so they should be regulated to an extent and that includes social media so they don’t infringe on people’s First Amendment rights.
You can’t have it both ways.
The use of the internet should be considered a utility like water, gas, electricity, etc. Social media has become the new public square and, to Twitter’s own admission, it would be a violation of human rights to keep people from being able to access it.
Like I argued in the previous article on this topic, I wouldn’t go that far, but would argue that it’s a First Amendment/overall civil right for people to use social media.
Those who are against that idea support an anti-capitalistic dogma and have the gall to sell it as capitalistic. Awful.
“He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.”
I have said this countless times: the Left doesn’t care about facts or evidence. They can see clearly that masks and lockdowns do not work and only hurt the states that they are supposed to be working for, but since the lockdowns let them be little dictators, they have no real interest in doing the right thing.
Look at California, for example. Despite all the grandstanding about wanting to “flatten the curve” and “stopping the spread of COVID-19” (and, by the way, don’t overlook the fact that they moved the goalposts from “slowing” the spread to “stopping” the spread, which is an impossible task to retain power), the state has the most Chinese coronavirus cases by far of any state, easily producing 17% of the nation’s infections.
California is the most populous state, at nearly 40 million people living there, but it also has 1.4 million active cases, which is roughly 3.5% of the population. The state with the second highest tally is Florida, which has 609,000 active cases out of a population of 21.9 million, or 2.7% of its population. Both populous states have active case percentages relative to population that are fairly close to one another, and yet, have completely different approaches to dealing with the virus.
MultiState has a ranking for how open each state is, and rank Alaska as the most open state, though it’s tied with Florida and South Dakota (openness scores of “96” each, so a virtual tie). California, like I said, has the strictest measures and thus, ranks at number 50 for openness out of 50 states in the Union.
Furthermore, according to Foundation for Economic Education, “on a per capita basis, Californian’s (sic) active cases are about 30 percent higher than Florida, which has virtually no restrictions in place.”
Despite the demonstrable fact that lockdowns don’t work, many governors, both Republican and Democrat (though, in some cases, they can just be referred to as “The Party”), choose to repeatedly implement stricter and stricter lockdown measures.
The FEE theorizes that part of the reason as to why is for politicians’ own ability of self-preservation. They want to appear in-charge and like they are doing something to take the virus seriously, even if they leave countless bodies along the way. Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order on March 25, 2020, which was basically a death sentence for countless old people in retirement and nursing homes, but because he was posturing as taking the virus seriously (and because he’s a Democrat, so the media has no real reason to be harsh with him), he was considered to be a good enough leader as to receive awards for how he has dealt with the virus.
He even believed his own hype so much that he wrote a book about what a good job he had done… right before New York saw another surge in cases.
That theory about self-preservation makes sense when you consider some spineless Republican governors being so willing to strip people’s civil liberties and rights so that they appear to be “taking the virus seriously.” Gov. Kristy Noem and Gov. Ron DeSantis received plenty of flack from both the media and politicians for choosing liberty over tyranny, being painted as “violent” governors who would doom their states.
Nearly a year since the pandemic began, and anyone with a working brain would far prefer to live in South Dakota or Florida than in California or New York.
Freedom-loving governors understand the science behind the Chinese coronavirus and understand that lockdowns have little to no effect on the spread and effectiveness of the virus. They understand that much of the world has been bamboozled by the “experts” who have profited tremendously from this pandemic. Seriously, the Chinese coronavirus is the single best thing to ever happen to people like Fauci, Birx, Tedros, and (though he’s not an expert) Xi Jinping. It’s the best thing to ever happen to socialistic politicians whom have dreamed for the ability to rule people’s lives. It’s the best thing to ever happen to the uberwealthy like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc.
Their good fortune comes from the average Joe’s suffering. Your misery is their profit.
It’s funny, really. Coming from a socialistic family, my mother was often told that “the rich stole from the poor to get their wealth.” In a capitalistic society, that is obviously baloney. The rich are often the ones who innovate and put things into markets which people want to buy in great demand. But in a socialistic society, what they say is 100% true. Though they initially amassed wealth by other means, people like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc. have only gotten wealthier BECAUSE of the unconstitutional lockdowns which have snuffed out smaller businesses.
Your local mom and pop shop isn’t allowed to reopen, but the big boys in the grocery industry like Walmart, Target, Publix, etc. have always been allowed to operate, even if with some restrictions.
A small cake shop can’t operate, but a massive Walmart with its own dessert section is allowed to function with almost no issues.
They may have gotten their wealth by selling marketable goods (except for Zuckerberg who was almost certainly taking money from Soros), but they have grown their wealth exponentially in the last year solely because of the monopolies which they own and because of the inability for anyone to even LEGALLY compete with them.
Our society is quickly becoming feudalistic, with certain rights and privileges being exclusively owned by the ruling class. The death of small businesses and of the middle class are the best things that could happen to the wealthy and the powerful, so what reason do heartless politicians have to reopen sincerely?
We were initially told that we would be locked down for 15 days. It’s been nearly a year.
We were initially told we had to “flatten the curve”. It was flattened many times for many states, some of which chose to not reopen at any capacity.
We were initially told to “slow the spread of the virus”. It was then changed to “stop the spread of the virus” which is an impossible task unless you planned to lock up every single person in their homes forever.
We were initially told that we’d be able to go back to normal once we had vaccines widely available. We have numerous vaccines widely available (I don’t trust them, but we have them) and many states have few plans to reopen. Fauci even moved those goal posts, saying that even with the vaccines, we still needed to adhere to the guidelines of mask-wearing and social distancing.
If those guidelines still have to be followed after people take the vaccine, then what’s the point of the vaccine? It’s supposed to be immunization which ought to last at least a good few years (and yes, I think flu shots are a scam if you have to take them every freaking year). So if you’re immune, why would you still need to wear a mask and social distance?
“Masks are supposed to protect others, not ourselves,” the liberal will argue. But there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread. So if I show no symptoms (and I very well shouldn’t if I have taken the vaccine and it’s effective), then why should I keep wearing a mask? I wouldn’t be spreading anything to anyone else. And even assuming every single person in the country takes the vaccine, I can guarantee you those “guidelines” will remain in place.
What they intend to do with this pandemic is similar to what the warhawks have done with the never-ending wars: provide b.s. reasons to remain in the Middle East and to continue fighting. The b.s. reasons they give for continuing the never-ending wars is that we are “keeping our enemies at bay” or “we are bringing democracy to those places” or “we are fighting there so that they don’t bring the fight to our shores”, etc. etc.
The b.s. reasons they give for keeping these measures are “to keep people safe” and “to ensure that more people don’t die from this deadly virus.” The virus is barely deadly and has demonstrably been overcounted in death tolls (remember, only 6% of the total died FROM the virus. The others died with it, and the tally counts people who died from gunshot wounds and falling from great heights).
The people who now have power see a great opportunity with this pandemic. So long as they can continue selling the idea that they are doing things for “the greater good”, they can continue to try and convince their people to not resist against them. After all, anyone who would challenge those who are “just trying to keep people safe” must be a terrorist and insurrectionist, right?
The good news is that we outnumber them greatly. There will be a breaking point for them. You can only rule people so harshly for so long before you get serious pushback. I just hope the military is not so infested with Leftists that it would gleefully turn against the citizens of this nation.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
In my opinion, the United States should have also banned big tech ahead of its own elections, seeing as they at least played some part in the election interference (something which they admitted to planning on doing shortly after Trump’s election victory in 2016). It’s kind of a shame that Uganda can run elections better than the U.S. can.
But in any case, let’s get to the main subject of the article. A couple of days ago, the president of Uganda temporarily banned Facebook, Twitter and all other big social media platforms ahead of its elections because, according to a spokesman for President Museveni, “Facebook is interfering in the electoral process of Uganda. If people wanted to have evidence of outside interference, now they have it.”
The official Twitter account for the government of Uganda tweeted: “The President warns that if social media channels like Facebook and Twitter are not being friendly and equitable to some of the Ugandans, then there is no reason as to why we should have them operate here.”
Facebook alleged to the AP that Museveni’s campaign “used fake and duplicate accounts to manage pages, comment on other people’s content, impersonate users, re-share posts in groups to make them appear more popular than they were. Given the impending election in Uganda, we moved quickly to investigate and take down this network.”
See, I’d be more willing to believe that Facebook was cracking down on those who clearly violated their TOS if they hadn’t spent the last few years cracking down on those who did not violate their TOS and only held and shared dissenting opinions from the ones Facebook shared. How many of you reading this article have been put in Facebook jail at least once? How many times do you believe you violated the platform’s TOS to deserve such a punishment? What caused you to be punished in such a way? Sharing violent threats? Sharing misinformation? Because Leftists can do both of those things with utter impunity. Did you share things which were pro-Trump but a bigoted Leftist (or a number of them) reported your post/comment(s)?
Madonna, back in 2017, publicly shared that she had thought “an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” Terroristic comments like that, when uttered by Leftists and aimed at the Right, are allowed on social media.
Now, a liberal might argue: “But she made that threat in a speech during a protest in D.C., not on Facebook, so why would social media ban her?” I don’t know, why did they ban the sitting president’s account? The “incitement” that the Left claims he made was also made in a speech during a protest in D.C. The words he used, by the way, included “peacefully”, so he never even got close to making a terroristic threat like Madonna. And yet, he gets purged from social media, but Madonna receives no punishment.
The Ayatollah Khamenei frequently breaks social media TOS by making threats against America, Jews, Christians, etc., and his account is not only not banned, but some have reported that he was PROMOTED by Twitter as someone for them to follow.
So forgive me if I don’t exactly believe Facebook’s side of the story here. They very well could be telling the truth, but I could hardly care at this point. If they wanted my sympathy and support, they shouldn’t swing their ban hammers around in the direction of right-wingers solely for the purpose of being right-wing.
Naturally, since Twitter was also on the receiving end of this Ugandan ban, they bitched and moaned against “censorship.”
“Ahead of the Ugandan election, we’re hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps. We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet,” said Twitter’s Public Policy account.
And, I just have to say, thank you so very much, Twitter, you hypocritical morons. You have just given those of us who support the regulation of social media a massive gift by admitting that what you provide is a “basic human right”.
Uganda didn’t outright ban the internet, it just banned big tech social media platforms. By saying that banning such content is a violation of basic human rights, you give up the argument that people don’t have a basic right to having and using a Twitter account.
LOLbertarians (libertarians who hilariously support tyranny when it comes from corporations) argue that “no one has a right to Twitter” or Facebook, etc. Apparently, Twitter itself does not agree with them, seeing as they believe taking away Ugandans’ ability to use social media is a violation of basic human rights.
So, then, what purpose does any lawyer have to not go after Twitter for violating the basic human rights of thousands of conservative accounts, including that of the President of the United States?
Now, I wouldn’t argue that it’s a “basic human right”, but it should be considered part of a First Amendment right to free speech. Social media, particularly the big ones, have become the new public square. It’s where people share their opinions on things if they so choose. To ban someone for holding the “wrong” opinion is a clear violation of that First Amendment right.
“But the founders never envisioned something like the internet and social media when they wrote the First Amendment.” True, but they also didn’t envision modern weapons like what we have today, but if you could ask them about modern weapons, there’s no doubt they would include such weapons as being protected under the Second Amendment.
They wrote the Second Amendment with the idea that an armed people would be more difficult to be subjected to tyranny. The weapons people had back then were just about the same as what official militaries had. If anything, I would argue that the founders would make the case for citizens being able to wield the same kinds of weapons that the military has. Maybe not things like tanks, helicopters and aircraft, but fully automatic guns and other things. Maybe not grenades and other explosives, but who knows?
So if they intended for Americans to be able to protect themselves with guns, likely knowing that guns would evolve one day and advancements would be made, why wouldn’t they argue in favor of free speech in places like even social media?
What’s more, Leftists have no issue with claiming that athletes have the right to protest the flag before games, despite the fact that they are 1) employees of the NFL/the teams that signed them and 2) working in stadiums held by private companies. So if athletes can exercise their free speech rights despite the private ownership of both the teams that signed them/the league that they play for and the private ownership of the stadiums in which they play, why can’t everyday Americans exercise their free speech rights in privately owned social media platforms?
I mean, even Twitter is admitting here that it’s a “basic human right” to be able to use their services. I wouldn’t go that far, but people definitely have a First Amendment right to use their services in such a way.
“But what about the crazy people like QAnon, who come up with insane conspiracy theories about everything?” What about the crazy people like the Democrat party, which came up with the insane conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election?
I’m not one to strongly defend Q because a lot of what those guys say is, at best, baseless and without evidence, but let’s not pretend as though the Left isn’t just as baseless and without evidence about a lot of things they say. For three and a half years, CNN and other fake news media organizations ran with the utter lie that Trump colluded with Russia, despite zero evidence turning up that would prove it. That was as much of a conspiracy theory as the theory that Trump is sending good guys in the DOJ to arrest high-profile individuals like the Clintons, Obamas, Soros, etc.
The idea that Trump tried to collude with Ukraine against Biden is as much a conspiracy theory as the one that JFK Jr. is still alive. No evidence means no real reason to believe it’s true. So if Q should be banned from social media because of what they say, then so should the OVERWHELMING majority of the Left.
But as long as they aren’t harming anyone, or calling for the harm of anyone, why wouldn’t they be allowed to use social media?
There was a guy I saw recently who claimed that the Trump Administration reached out to him and people like him (the guy is from Britain and lived in what looked like a very small and inexpensive apartment) about something regarding Trump staying in office for the next four years with the help of the military. The guy, in his “About” page (he has a website), claims that he is someone who was frequently visited by aliens, “shadow people”, or something like that, and in general, other crazy stuff. The guy is off his rocker, clearly, but what harm does he do by saying what he does?
Without providing any evidence, there is no reason to believe anything he says (and his other claims regarding aliens and what-not make any of his claims dubious at best). Why should he not be allowed a platform when the fake news media, again, without evidence, is allowed massive platforms to claim that Trump colluded with Russia (among other things)?
And with that same zero amount of evidence, why would Twitter and Facebook not ban people that made that sort of claim if the platforms are intent on stopping the spread of disinformation?
The fact of the matter is that the Left is a frequent breaker of social media platforms’ TOS, and yet, they hardly ever receive punishment for their actions. The social media giants have clear agendas and an intent on silencing dissenting voices of opinion, regardless of whether or not they break the TOS.
So, again, forgive me if I fail to show or have any sympathy for the woes of social media giants when Uganda chooses to ban the platforms ahead of its elections.
It’s not even like I’m necessarily taking the Ugandan governments’ word for their reasons to ban the tech giants. Maybe the Museveni campaign is doing everything Facebook is alleging that they are. But with how often the tech giants cried “wolf” about people breaking their TOS who did not, in fact, break their TOS, why should I give Facebook or social media the benefit of the doubt?
Why would I side with them when, to Twitter’s own admission, they “violate basic human rights” when they strip people of their ability to use their platforms? They are every bit the censorious violators of free speech that they claim the Ugandan government to be, so why defend them at any capacity?
Give people back their free speech rights, and then I will side with them against the Ugandan government. Until then, and for as long as they choose to be corporate tyrants, I will support regulating them and even breaking them up.
Monopolies shouldn’t exist anyway.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
As I have said in a previous article, I am no longer of the belief that President Trump will be serving a second term beginning on January 20th, as a result of an election which was stolen by the establishment and the usual safeguards against election theft were utterly ignored.
We will be getting an illegitimate and unconstitutional Biden/Harris administration (we’ll see if they Old Yeller Old Man Joe), but we’ll be getting such an administration nonetheless. And though they will point to the Capitol Riot as a reason for their future authoritarian actions, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have done the things they are calling for in any case. They hate us and want to destroy us, and are just using that event (which was nowhere near as destructive or insurrectionist as the Antifa/BLM riots of last year) as an excuse for their tyranny.
However, there is good news to be had: there will always be bright days ahead.
Not likely in the short-term future, and such days will likely be very dark for our nation and our people, but let me tell you of another dark period in our nation’s history which has largely gone forgotten but which will likely seem similar under the next administration.
Let me tell you about the illegal, unconstitutional, and “Reign of Terror”-like Palmer Raids of the Wilson administration.
The Foundation for Economic Education is my main source here, and they have a great article that goes into more detail regarding this event than I will, so it’s worth to check them out. Lawrence W. Reed wrote, back in January of 2020, about how 100 years have passed (obviously, now 101) since one of the biggest infringements of people’s civil liberties and rights: the Palmer Raids.
Reed begins: “Exactly a hundred years ago this morning – on January 3, 1920 – Americans woke up to discover just how little their own government regarded the cherished Bill of Rights. During the night, some 4,000 of their fellow citizens were rounded up and jailed for what amounted, in most cases, to no good reason at all and no due process, either.”
Some contextual information is obviously necessary to understand what we are talking about here. The Palmer Raids, illegal and unconstitutional police raids, are named after their instigator, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, President Woodrow Wilson’s last Attorney General. The event in question, in Reed’s own words, “constituted a horrific, shameful episode in American history, one of the lowest moments for liberty since King George III quartered troops in private homes.”
The targets, ironically, were radicals and Leftists who were deemed by the Wilson administration to be hostile to “American values.” I say this is ironic for a number of reasons. Primarily, Wilson was, himself, a Leftist Democrat. Wilson was the first president to have movies shown in the White House, and shamefully, the first such film ever shown was a pro-KKK film named “The Birth of a Nation”, originally called “The Clansman.” He was an actual racist who sought to segregate federal government as much as he could and held Old Southern values, obviously.
I am not sure just how different he was from these “radicals” and “Leftists” whom his administration targeted, but his very actions demonstrate his own Leftist and authoritarian values.
It’s worth pointing out that other former presidents, even prior to Wilson, had done some damage to people’s civil liberties and Constitutional rights. John Adams, for example, himself a founding patriot and our nation’s second president (so it took two presidents for tyranny to rear its ugly head in this country), got Congress, led by Adams’ Federalist Party, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it easier for the government to deport foreigners, made it harder for new immigrants to vote (so far, so good) and made it so that fines and imprisonment could be handed out to those who “write, print, utter, or publish… any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government, according to USHistory.org.
Now, in the era of fake news which has been meant to utterly derail and undermine the Trump administration, one might be more open to considering such an act as being good, but the problem comes in the fact that the very government passing such a law is the one which gets to determine the definition of “false, scandalous and malicious writing.” For example, more than 20 Democratic-Republican newspaper editors were arrested and, some, imprisoned. One prominent example of those imprisoned by this law was Vermont Representative Matthew Lyon, who wrote a letter critical of Adams’ “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice.”
So basically, imagine if fake news media journalists could be imprisoned for merely calling Trump a racist, or “worse than Hitler.” While I think it’s obscene that they would so callously call him those things, they have First Amendment rights to say those things, as well they should. Just like we have First Amendment rights to call Biden a racist and sex offender, particularly if there is proof of that.
And President Lincoln suspended political opponents’ habeas corpus rights during the Civil War.
So it wasn’t exactly unprecedented for Wilson to be a violator of civil liberties and rights, but that doesn’t mean what he did was right at any capacity. Further, his legacy can be felt even to today, seeing as his administration oversaw (and endorsed) the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, which made it so that the federal government would begin taxing people’s personal income, and made it so that U.S. Senators would be elected through popular vote instead of appointed by state legislatures similar to the president, respectively. Also, he created the Federal Reserve, and I don’t have to tell you how that one is felt today.
Wilson’s administration also created the Committee on Public Information (CPI), which was basically just a department of propaganda to try and convince Americans that The Great War was right and just and necessary for the preservation of democracy. “Two months later,” writes Reed, “under intense pressure from the White House, Congress passed the Espionage Act. Any person who made ‘false reports or false statements with intent to interfere’ with the official war effort could be punished with 20 years in jail or a fine of $10,000 (at least a quarter-million in today’s dollars), or both. It was amended in May 1918 by the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to write or speak anything ‘disloyal or abusive’ about the government, the Constitution, the flag, or a US military uniform.”
Wilson’s then-Attorney General, Thomas Watt Gregory, also did something similar to what de Blasio encouraged New Yorkers to do during the pandemic: spy and snitch on each other. The Justice Department would receive thousands of accusations of “disloyalty” every single day.
This, for those who are relatively familiar with French history, is reminiscent of one of the aspects of the Reign of Terror which made it as awful as it was. The French citizens were encouraged by the Jacobins to spy on one another and report any acts or beliefs deemed to be “counter-revolutionary.” Any expression of sympathy for King Louis XVI or any critique of the revolutionaries, particularly of Robespierre, were deemed as crimes punishable by guillotine.
While it wasn’t quite that bad for Americans a hundred years ago, it was still pretty awful nonetheless. What’s more, the Post Office would destroy certain mail instead of delivering it and began banning magazines which would “embarrass” the government. According to Reed: “An issue of one periodical was outlawed for no more reason than it suggested the war be paid for by taxes instead of loans.”
Anything that was deemed critical of American allies like France or Britain was also banned, including a movie about the Revolutionary War wherein the British were seen as the bad guys… because of course they were back then, but by the time of the war, the British were allies and Wilson didn’t want any critique of them.
“Of the roughly 2,000 people prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, not a single one of them was a German spy. They were all Americans whose thoughts or deeds (almost none of them violent) ran counter to those of the man in the big White House. Hundreds were deported after minimal due process even though they were neither illegal immigrants nor convicted criminals.”
So all those laws did was infringe on people’s free speech rights as well as due process rights and they did nothing to deter spying and disinformation from the Germans, who would be defeated a little more than a year and a half after the United States “entered” the war (we officially entered the war in April of 1917 but wouldn’t even land in Europe and enter combat until months later).
After the end of World War I, Wilson’s next big bad enemy of American democracy was what became known as the “Red Scare.” And while I agree that communism is, indeed, antithetical and a threat to the American REPUBLIC, Wilson himself was also a big threat to it as he had proven throughout his two (potentially almost three, had he been healthier) terms as president.
In March of 1919, Wilson appointed a new Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, who was, in Wilson’s own words: “young, militant, progressive and fearless.” Interesting how “progressive” was used even by Leftists back then and how that word was used in its exact opposite intention. I cannot say that there was anything about Wilson’s administration that was progressive in the sense that it helped pave the way forward in a positive sense, and it only led to regression in terms of people’s civil liberties. There is a reason Reed calls back on King George III’s quartering of troops in people’s homes when discussing this subject.
At any rate, actually getting to the raids now, the first of the two biggest raids happened on November 7th. 1919, where Palmer and his newly appointed deputy, J. Edgar Hoover, spearheaded the operation wherein “federal agents scooped up hundreds of alleged radicals, subversives, communists, anarchists, and ‘undesirable’ but legal immigrants in 12 cities – some 650 in New York City alone. Beatings, even in police stations, were not uncommon,” wrote Reed.
January 2nd, 1920 was the second of the major raids, the largest and most aggressive one yet, which Reed calls “a night of terror: about 4,000 arrests across 23 states, often without legitimate search warrants and with the arrestees frequently tossed into makeshift jails in substandard conditions.”
Interestingly enough, The Washington Post had an opinion piece, where one person wrote: “There is no time to waste on hairsplitting over infringement of liberties.” So the WaPo was not exactly a friend of freedom even a hundred years ago.
Now, you might be asking roughly why I’m talking about this, particularly to this length. Well, there is no doubt that the Left is as authoritarian today as they were back then and will usurp our liberties and rights for whatever cockamamie reason they give such as “social justice” or whatever else to try and justify it. Wilson used the war and the rise of the Soviet Union as the reason for being an authoritarian himself, and the Left today will use Trump, Trumpism and the Capitol riot as the reason for being authoritarians in our near future.
Already, there are calls from some on the Left to designate MAGA rallies as terrorist gatherings. They will use things like the Patriot Act (another infringement on people’s freedoms, courtesy of George W. Bush) to destroy as many of our liberties as possible, claiming to be fighting “domestic terrorism” (all the while they are openly supportive of Antifa and BLM terrorist actions).
Despite the dark days that are most likely in our future, it’s worth mentioning, and a bit of a sigh of relief, that bright days are what lay ahead of dark ones. Despite the actions of Wilson, America still saw times of great prosperity, such as under Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump. There is no denying that Wilson eroded many liberties of Americans, which for the most part, have not been undone by any future administration, but the pursuit of liberty is always a worthwhile endeavor. It’s unlikely we will ever see an America which our founders envisioned (and, to an extent, some of the founders even had a hand in ensuring that, given Adams’ actions), at least on this Earth.
The Founders likely envisioned what was the closest thing to Heaven on Earth back then, but Man’s evil nature is what prevented them from being able to fulfil it, and it’s what prevents us from being able to get close to it.
But despite what is likely ahead of us, look forward to the future which will come after it. Apart from Christ’s, no victory is permanent. The Left will taste defeat again sooner than they expect.
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
This is the third “Meet X” article I have written which demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of the fake news media, the Left, and BLM Inc. (but I repeat myself) when discussing unjust killings of people.
First, there was Ryan Whitaker, who was killed by police officers back in May of 2020, but whose story was not widely reported because Ryan was a white man and the narrative surrounding police is that they only kill black people.
Then, there was Cannon Hinnant, who was a five-year-old white kid executed by his black neighbor while riding his bicycle. His story was not widely reported because 1) the kid was white and 2) the killer is black. CNN, by the way, now has three stories where they mention Cannon Hinnant, and egregiously, they dare include the following paragraph in the last story where they mentioned him: “And in the midst of the same racial unrest experienced throughout the rest of the country, our collective hearts were broken over the senseless killing of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant, who was White. Though the suspect, a Black man, was apprehended… many people in Wilson and throughout the country politicized this tragedy to counter the legitimacy of those protesting generations of institutionalized and overt racism…”
First of all, their hearts did not break over the killing of Cannon, because they took their sweet freaking time talking about Cannon, their first story was the length of 222 words, and have now mentioned George Floyd over 2,200 times in their own articles. And, by the way, this latest article wasn’t about Hinnant himself, but about elections in North Carolina.
Second of all, a bit rich to accuse others of politicizing that tragedy considering JUST WHO THE HELL THESE PEOPLE ARE. The media narrative is that white people are racist and black people are oppressed by them and their racism. That story ran contrary to that narrative, so they swept it under the rug as much as possible in order to focus on things which help their own agenda. Invert the races in that story and you would watch a nation cry for justice, as it should. But because Hinnant was white and his killer is black, that story is not only buried, but ATTACKED as being a political tool for countering “the legitimacy of protesting generations of… racism.” What a load of utter bullcrap, but what can you expect from the demons at CNN?
At any rate, now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about Robert Howard, who himself was killed by a cop for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Robert Howard was a 30-year-old black man, who was killed by a Memphis police officer on January 5th, with the officer reportedly having forced Howard into his squad car and executing him while on duty.
According to WREG Memphis, “Patrick Ferguson, 29, is charged with first-degree murder, including aggravated kidnapping, tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in the death of 30-year-old Robert Howard.”
Memphis police released a statement on Sunday outlining the allegations. “On Jan. 6, Howard’s girlfriend called police to report him missing. He had last been seen around 5 p.m. the day before in the 3500 block of Mark Twain Street in Frayser.”
“Police said an investigation revealed that Ferguson, armed with a handgun, encountered Howard outside his residence and forced him into his squad car. The two knew each other, police said.”
“Ferguson then drove to Frayser Boulevard and Denver Street, where he shot and killed Howard, according to MPD.”
“Another man, 28-year-old Joshua Rogers, also is charged with tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in this case. Police say he was an acquaintance of Ferguson and helped him relocate the body.”
Assuming we have just about the full story here, what we have is a pretty gruesome and awful situation. A man was seemingly minding his own business when a police officer, whom Howard knew, used force to get him into the back of his squad car and, at some point, killed him and abused his corpse, with the help of an “acquaintance” of the officer who helped the officer move the body.
Howard does not seem to have committed a crime here and was seemingly just kidnapped. The only thing I really question here is that “acquaintance” status for Rogers, seeing as no acquaintance would just help someone with getting rid of a body. I imagine, if Ferguson didn’t really know Rogers all that well, that Ferguson paid Rogers to help him with that.
But at any rate, why do you think the fake news media didn’t cover this or that BLM hasn’t made this a massive spectacle? Now, you might guess that the date of these events had something to do with it. Howard was kidnapped and, likely, killed on January 5th, when the biggest subject was the Georgia run-off elections. He was reported as missing on the 6th, when the biggest subject was the pro-Trump protest which eventually led to some people rioting and storming Capitol Hill (while some also seemingly were just allowed to go in).
However, stories like these usually don’t get reported until a good deal later, so the vast majority of people were not even aware that this had happened. WREG initially posted the story on January 10th, so not that long ago. One could argue that a couple of days is not enough for BLM and the fake news media to make a big deal out of this, but here’s the thing: they won’t make a big deal out of this no matter how much time passes.
The reason for this is simple: both the officer who kidnapped and killed Howard, Patrick Ferguson, and the officer’s “acquaintance” accomplice, Joshua Rogers, are black themselves.
Without that fact, the story of a black man killed by a cop, particularly when it was almost certainly an illegitimate execution, would make national news and BLM would demand you to “say his name” and sports athletes would take a knee supposedly in his honor. But that narrative doesn’t really work very well if the police officer who carries on such an illegal execution is black himself.
The narrative only works if the following parameters are met: the “victim” (sometimes, they actually are the victim, such as in Howard's case, but not most of the time) is black and the officer(s) is/are white.
As with the case of Ryan Whitaker, the cops that undoubtedly extrajudicially killed him hardly matter because the first parameter was not met. Whitaker was shot and killed by a white police officer, but because he was, himself, white, his story was not told.
And with Cannon Hinnant, though it wasn’t a police-involved killing, it does involve race in a way. The killer was black and the victim was white. The narrative of black people being oppressed and white people being the oppressors doesn’t work here, so it’s largely ignored, and when people point out that fact and the hypocrisy that goes alongside it, the fake news media acts as though those people are just playing political games.
It’s really quite disgusting the way in which the “free” press acts in this country. Only *certain* groups of people get a story about them made into a big deal. Even then, only if *certain* conditions are met. If a white man is killed by a white cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. If a white man is killed by a black cop, the story definitely doesn’t get covered. If a black man is killed by a black cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. Only if a black man is killed by a white cop does the story get plenty of coverage.
And the reason for the killing doesn’t really matter. They made Rayshard Brooks into a big story, despite the fact that he had stolen a cop’s taser and tried to use it against him. They made Michael Brown a big story despite the fact that he quite literally tried to beat a cop with his own squad car’s door. They made George Floyd into a big story because, despite the fact he was not really a threat to the officers, he died in their custody (and despite the fact that he was later discovered to have been under the influence of drugs and he overdosed).
But if a black man is brutally and extrajudicially executed by a black cop, that story doesn’t get much outrage and outcry and coverage despite how absolutely awful that is.
Now, I can suspect the motive for the killing in the first place. Ferguson and Howard, as WREG reported, knew one another, so this clearly wasn’t a random kidnapping and execution. If I had to guess, it might have had to do with some unpaid debt or some sort of strife between the two men. But the fact of the matter remains that a cop kidnapped and killed a person for any given reason. That idea ought to frighten people, regardless of motive. And the officer should well face serious charges and, if found guilty, face serious consequences.
But despite the fact that such an astoundingly disgusting thing happened, the incident doesn’t help the narrative of the Left. Granted, they are currently trying to just orchestrate a not-so silent coup against the President of the United States, so I think that even if the cop had been white in this scenario, this story likely would not have been talked about much, but the point remains that they will not cover even extrajudicial executions of people by police if a narrative cannot be drawn from it to advance their agenda.
The fake news media disgusts me to my core.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
A sign of the Left buying into the b.s. that they are selling is that those who advocate for the genocidal practice of abortion no longer feel the need to feign any humility or sadness about the subject. In the past, they pretended as though abortion was a “necessary tragedy”, a “necessary evil” which is not pretty but “had to happen” for the sake of someone, namely the mother.
They used to say they wanted “safe, legal, and rare” abortion to make it appear as though what they advocated was logical and fair, but didn’t push the envelope too much. “Safe”, “legal” and “rare” are what they used to say to make it appear a moderate position, implying that even they did not like the procedure, but felt as though, in the grand scheme of things, it was a necessary evil for one purpose or another.
Nowadays, women are encouraged to “shout” their abortion and celebrate with glee as states and countries make legal the homicidal practice. They celebrate the holocaust that is abortion and believe that most people are with them in this regard.
Why else would misguided (at best) Argentinian women celebrate the legalization of abortion in the first large Latin American country to do so? Why else would Satanic lawmakers and politicians in New York celebrate the legalization of abortion through the third trimester and making it a Constitutional right for women to get an abortion in the state?
What they used to say is that they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”. In reality, they just want it to be legal. They couldn’t care less about it being “safe” because murder is never safe. That “safety” is never extended to the babies which are brutally murdered. “Safety” was not their goal. Regulation was.
They didn’t want women to kill their own babies through DIY means. They wanted women to kill their babies at their slaughter houses so that they could get paid for it. They wanted to profit off of it and profit they have.
And “rare”? Why would they want to make rare their most used and profitable service? It serves them well, make plenty off of it, and get to enjoy the sickening thrill of killing another person without having to suffer the consequences or penalties associated with murder.
This is like allowing drug dealers the legal ability to sell their supply in schools. Why wouldn’t they be happy about it? Why would they try to deter it at any capacity?
In a recent interview with the WaPo, Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson pushed back on the MSM source’s attempt at downplaying the den of killers’ reputation as being America’s largest abortion provider: “I think when we say, ‘It’s a small part of what we do,’ what we’re doing is stigmatizing it. We are a proud abortion provider… abortion is healthcare.”
So they are not at all ashamed at what they are doing because now, the narrative is that abortion is not even a “necessary evil”, but an outright GOOD AND POSITIVE thing. They have tried to rationalize and justify it, but anyone with a heart recognizes that abortion is anything but a rational, justified, good or positive thing. It’s murder, and even some pro-abortion devils are beginning to be okay with even acknowledging that.
Now, what prompted me to write about this at all is an article from The Federalist, about how “Abortion Supporters Are No Longer Lying About Their Cruelty.”
In that article, the author talks more in-depth about the situation in Argentina, and about how there is a picture (right below) of a 10-year-old girl at a pro-abortion protest stepping on a baby doll:
What girl does this? Now, I can hardly judge the actions of a naïve 10-year-old, seeing as she likely does not know what she is doing here or just how evil this is, but she must have had parents dragging her to this event and teaching her all kinds of horrible things.
Even my own mother, when she was a child in Argentina, was taught by her mother, my grandmother, that babies in the womb were “basically just Jell-O.” The implication, obviously, being that they are not people, just a random clump of cells and tissue, not too different from a cancerous tumor.
But even then, young girls tend to play with dolls like that one in the picture. Maybe not quite as much today, given how technology and tablets have basically taken over for toys for children, but girls her age and younger still usually play with such dolls and show care and some amount of love for them.
Even a news anchor in Argentina, named Viviana Canosa, recognized what it is that young girls tend to do with such toys:
“You know, we didn’t know if we would be mothers or wanted to be mothers, but we used to play with dolls. We put them to bed, we gave them something to eat and cared for them. We role-played mom & dad with our girl friends: ‘Hey can you [take] care of my baby? I’m going off to work!’ That was our childhood. And this photo is disturbing to me. It is the antithesis of what I experienced in the [pro-life] March of Two Lives this weekend.”
Such behavior is not natural – it is taught. Women are supposed to be protectors of their young; care-takers. But you can see the hatred that has been taught to that girl. That is an act of hate. Again, can hardly judge her very harshly for this, seeing as she’s just a dumb little girl, but this is the kind of behavior that, if not corrected, she will carry for the rest of her life. Unless taught and shown otherwise, she will grow up to be hateful of children and delight with glee at the thought of their deaths.
But make no mistake: the pro-abortion crowd was always this cruel and inhumane. They’re just now coming around to admitting it to some extent or another.
The author of that Federalist article concluded his piece by saying: “It’s worth asking how the pro-abortion movement in the United States and abroad has become so inhumanely cruel. The darker truth, however, is that it may simply be shedding its false veneer to reveal the evil that was always there.”
There is no “may” about it. It is. At the end of the day, fundamentally, these people were always advocating for murder. Whether they were cognizant of this or not, and whether or not they admitted it, they were advocating for the termination of life.
It was perhaps a bit more excusable before technology allowed women to see their unborn children through ultrasound, since the major argument for Roe was that unborn children are not alive, but with this invention, there is simply no excuse whatsoever for the continued advocation of infanticide.
The science is settled on this one: babies in the womb are alive. They have their own unique DNA code, separate from that of their parents. They eventually develop heartbeats and brain activity. They grow lungs which they don’t use yet, but will do so once out of the womb. They have everything we would recognize in a human baby. That there is continued advocacy for abortion despite the evidence of human LIFE shows you how inhumane, cruel and evil the advocacy always was.
That they are beginning to drop the “necessary tragedy” and “safe, legal, and rare” aspects of it is not what shows the cruelty of the abortion movement – they are merely symptoms of the overall disease.
They are convinced now that most people are with them with regards to this issue and are beginning to make the foolish decision to out themselves for what they are. Now, I can’t blame them for thinking they have such massive support. Pop culture, regular media and social media make it look as though the Left is massively popular and that their view is the mainstream view. They couldn’t be more wrong, however.
Though they try to make it look good and positive, the truth remains that abortion is murder and murder is still generally seen as a massive taboo which must be punished. These people have to lie to get people on their side, so exposing themselves for what they are and what they stand for is not going to work out in their favor, particularly as the only real reason they would do so is because they have bought into the idea that they are the mainstream view and opinion.
They have banned conservative voices from their platforms and as a result, believe that everyone else who is left agrees with them. A foolish leap in logic, but these aren’t the most logical of people.
But that they even think of exposing themselves for what they are shows you that it was just a ruse that they sought “safe, legal, and rare” abortion or that it was a “necessary tragedy.” They are killers for profit, not too different from hitmen.
Do not let them fool you: They are of their father, the devil.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
I know that in the year of our Lord 2021, it hardly makes much sense to talk about Hillary Clinton, or even mention her in a title, but there is at least one thing which she and Trump have in common: they both have been betrayed by those around them.
Now, that’s not to say that I feel badly for Hillary as a result. She’s every bit the swamp rat that the people who betrayed her are. The way in which Hillary and Trump were betrayed are noticeably different.
Hillary was betrayed at different times for different reasons. Her own husband cheated on her numerous times, some of which were not in consensual relations, and betrayed his marriage vows with her. Her party betrayed her when they believed a slick, young African-American guy from Illinois would be a better leader and president for them than she would (though Obama did wreck the Democrat party after he took office). And her latest stint at running for office was only given to her because some in the DNC believed it was just “her time” to basically be coronated. Even then, the party betrayed her by not taking Trump seriously and not doing enough cheating for her (despite how much they actually did try to cheat).
President Trump, in turn, has been betrayed by a plethora of people around him, both people whom he has misguidedly chosen as part of his cabinet and people who are/were elected representatives who cozied up to the man for the clout and the money, only to turn their backs on him when the best opportunity came about.
And after the Capitol riot, even some who used to call themselves “MAGA” turned against him, choosing to side with those whom have betrayed him in an appeal to seem “in favor of law enforcement.”
Now, there are plenty of theories out there regarding the riots: namely that they were either instigated by Antifa or that the entire thing was allowed to occur by Capitol police, or some combination of just about everything. Me? I have seen videos that suggest it was a set up and videos which suggest it was real and organic. Antifa was definitely there and dressed as Trump supporters (pro-Trump rallies and protests often are met with Antifa counter-protesters but this one somehow wasn't?), but it’s hard to say just how much of a presence they had.
What I do know is that, if these were Trump supporters for the most part, I can understand why they did what they did. Generally, I think rioting is wrong, but after an entire summer of Leftists being allowed to do considerably worse to innocent people, I don’t blame the real Trump supporters that were there for doing what they did.
Throughout the summer, I saw small businesses being either looted, destroyed, burned, or some combination of the three. Wednesday, all I saw was the Swamp being swarmed. I only feel sorry for those who have been physically hurt, however many they are, and for those who may have been killed (theories suggest no one was killed and it was part of the set-up, but erring on the side of caution and grace, I will, until evidence to the contrary totally refutes me, assume that people did die). But I don’t feel sorry for the elites who were scared.
I don’t feel sorry for Mitt Romney getting so shaken up. I don’t feel sorry for the politicians who were scared here who cheered and incited the riots that occurred over the summer. I don’t feel sorry for the swamp rats which have conspired to steal our election and our country. I don’t feel sorry for the establishment rats who believe they are superior to us and who believe they ought to rule us. In my mind, they got a taste of what they deserve.
If anything, the only downside to that riot (apart from the physical damage to people, of course) is that it will embolden these people and give them ammo for ruling us with an iron fist. However, it’s not like they didn’t intend on doing so to begin with. They are thirsty for power, which is why they wrestled it away from us in this election in the manner in which they did. The riots may give them a scapegoat as to why they will do what they will do, but these sick bastards would have done those things riot or no riot.
Still, those who have the mind to it will take whatever opportunity they can from this. The communist bastards will use this opportunity to rule us harshly. The peacetime conservatives who were still among us will use this opportunity to distance themselves from Trump and Trumpism, in the hopes of still having some social presence. The establishment RINOs who were openly against Trump from the beginning will use it to validate and justify their positions. That Romney yelled at Cruz as they were fleeing the Senate floor about how “this is what you have wrought” or something like that is an indication that he feels validated for his beliefs.
On the flipside, there are also those of us who will get a clearer picture as to how to proceed and what kind of people to lead us and surround ourselves with. For example, there is Leo Terrell, who used to be a Democrat and voted for Trump in 2020 solely because of Trump, not the GOP at any capacity. He tweeted a lot on Wednesday, among which is the declaration that: “I will never support any Republican or any candidate who betrayed president Donald J Trump.”
Those of us who are loyal to Trump will remain loyal to him and his populist conservatism, wherever that may lead.
I am no longer of the belief that Trump will serve a second term, but that may be for the best for him. I could hardly imagine being betrayed so many times by so many people in one term and recognize that that was just ONE term. President Trump has done far more for America than any of the people in Washington D.C. could ever accomplish even if they wanted to (which I’m not convinced they do). And the kicker is that he absolutely did not have to do any of this. He didn’t have to go through any of this.
He very easily could have just sat back in one of his many high-class domiciles as the country fell to socialism. For a while, and likely for the rest of his own life, he would have been living very well. The Biden administration and the establishment will, once they have the WH, seek to destroy the middle class, which will be to the benefit of the upper class. He could have easily just ridden a similar wave under what would have very easily been a Hillary Clinton administration. But instead, he chose to stick his own neck out and risk the scorn of half the country if it meant he could have the chance to save all of it.
Granted, I don’t think he ever thought the pushback would ever be so fierce, and even I was taken by surprise a bit, but I don’t think he believed there would have been just about no pushback. Further, if he believed it would have been an easy ride through two terms, and was met with the hatred and vitriol that he was, he would have shrunk back and handed control of everything to the establishment. Very easily, he could have set something up or made some deal which would allow him to resign rather quietly and with some grace. That he stepped up and fought as hard as he did throughout four years is an indication that he at least was expecting some amount of resistance to what he was trying to do, even if not this much of it, or that he at least was willing to stick his neck out and not just back out of what he committed to do.
He risked his own life and wealth to Make America Great Again and people within and without the establishment have immediately or ultimately turned their backs to him. This is something we suspected for a long time, but has become very clear recently: Trump is well and truly alone in D.C. Various people around him have betrayed him, from Omarosa to Scaramucci to Sessions to Barr to Chad Wolf to Krebs and the list goes on and on. The only one I thought was actually still with Trump was Pence, and that clearly is not the case anymore.
Even if unwittingly, Pence has betrayed not only Trump, but the nation itself by certifying the illegitimate results of the 2020 election. While this article is largely about how much Trump has been betrayed, let’s not beat around the bush: Trump being betrayed means we are betrayed.
This goes well beyond President Trump. An entire country’s election has been stolen, openly, and those whom we believed would be in the way of it – the Trump-appointed SCOTUS picks as well as the conservative justices, the state legislatures in the stolen states which are run by Republicans, the Republican governors of some of these states whom rode Trump’s coattails, and even the Vice President himself – have all come to betray us and the Constitution.
I don’t know how Pence believes “freedom wins”, as he declared upon continuing with the counting of the ballots to certify an illegitimate president, when an election is openly stolen and those whom reap the rewards intend on fundamentally destroying this nation even more than they have. Pence’s “freedom” is our slavery. The Washington Establishment’s freedom is our slavery.
Thomas Jefferson is attributed with saying: “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” What we have is not a government which fears the people. What we have is a government which hates the people. What we have is a government which will do whatever they can to make us fear them.
Unfortunately for them, we have no reason to fear the government and they are incapable of providing even one. Those who fear the Lord cannot fear men. Those who fear the Lord cannot fear the government.
God has control even over the evil and wicked people. Whatever evil they may wish to do is limited by God. They will still do evil, as the fact that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Xi, Nero and countless other despots have been allowed to wreak havoc when and where they reigned goes to show, but even that is limited by God. Hitler sought to eradicate the Jews and he failed. Stalin sought to have the Soviet Union rule the world and he failed. Mao and Xi sought/seek to have China rule the world (you think they would be content with a globalist power which they don’t fully control?) and God-willing, will fail. Putin seeks something similar for Russia (he wants to rule the world himself, not let Xi do it) and God-willing, will fail.
Whatever the wicked people of the world, historically and presently, seek to do is all limited by God. They still do evil and incredible damage, but nothing that God cannot change or fix. The evil of slavery had its grip on this country for quite a long time, since before it was first founded, but God, through courageous and righteous men, changed that and brought physical freedom to the enslaved. God freed the hearts and souls of those who were in shackles and, eventually, freed their bodies as well.
The evil of the Holocaust and the Nazis led to the ruination and death of millions of Jews, but God, through courageous and righteous men, changed that and led them to reinstate the country of Israel for the first time in millennia.
I don’t know the plans that God has for us, but I know that they are better than my own. We are now aware of the beast that is the establishment. It’s really quite the accomplishment for Trump that it took this beast, which had been operating in the darkness for decades, to reveal itself in order to defeat Trump. And now that we are aware of the enemy, we can better prepare for them.
In 2016, we had some idea as to the size of the swamp, but believed that it was largely just the elected officials and a few bad apples in the government who needed to be drained. Now, we recognize the size of the beast, and can better prepare for it.
Had we gotten what I wanted, a massive red wave and Trump landslide, the size of the beast would have remained a secret to us and would have made it more difficult for us to fight against it, if not outright impossible. Even if it’s at the cost of Trump’s well-deserved and legitimately-earned second term, we can have a better idea as to what we are fighting than what we would have otherwise.
Which is largely why I implored that people have hope in God above all else. Originally, that article was just regarding the election itself in the hopes that we wouldn’t get a Biden presidency, but the principle works for all situations anyway.
It’s not that we should have trust in our legal systems, for they have been exposed to be very flawed at best and rigged at worst. It’s not that we should have trust in politicians, for they have shown cowardice, betrayal, or both regarding their support for not only Trump but also the American people and the Constitution. It’s not that we should have trust in even Trump himself, because he is every bit an imperfect man as you or I. It’s that we should have trust in the Lord, for He is holy, holy, holy. Only God is entirely righteous, just, fair and wise. It is His Word and His Son whom we should cling to and put our faith and trust.
Recognizing this does not, at any capacity, mean a betrayal of Trump. Bad faith actors will accuse us of being cultists, and some may even take their adulation too far (I did see on Facebook, shortly after Trump was elected, someone who said “In Trump We Trust” which is not something anyone should do or say because we cannot pretend as though Trump can replace God), but many of us trust Trump because we trust God. We trust Trump, no doubt, but we must above all else and everyone else, have trust in the Lord.
There were times when Trump was disappointing, such as when he signed those omnibus bills, but he can be excused because he is human and fallible (not to mention he never neared the level of disappointment that I have felt with regard to many people we thought were on our side). God never disappoints because He is infallible. He is not caught off guard by the actions of the people around Trump or anyone else. He saw this coming when He created the universe. So why wouldn’t any of us put our trust in Him?
Despite the pain and suffering that is sure to come in a Biden (and, quite possibly, Harris) presidency, we must never waver in our faith in God. We must place Him above all else, trust in Him above all else, and follow Him above all else.
The short-term future won’t be pretty, but I believe another like Trump will come along as being anointed by God to fight against the establishment tyrants.
To conclude this rather lengthy impassioned article, all I have to say is… PRAY AND RESIST! For with Christ, all things are possible.
“But Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
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...