Since the days of slavery, the Democrat has always hated the idea of black people having guns. After all, if their slaves had guns, they could very easily revolt against them and that would be disastrous for them. That kind of mentality is still around, having expanded to all minorities in general, and for much the same reasons: they want a permanent underclass of voters and such a class cannot be allowed to defend itself against their masters.
 
So it’s not surprising, really, when The Violence Policy Center (VPC) sets its sights on the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA and the gun industry as a whole, charging them with “racism” for “targeting” blacks and Latinos as being first-time gun owners.
 
The VPC released a report saying: “In its marketing efforts to communities of color, the gun industry frequently focuses on the self-defense use of firearms, despite the fact that guns are rarely used to stop crimes or kill criminals and are far more likely to be used in homicides, suicides, or fatal unintentional shootings.”
 
Oh, boy, we just began and already, we can smell the bullcrap.
 
First of all, it’s a fact that guns ARE used for self-defense more than for committing crimes. According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, “The best estimates of DGUs (defensive gun use)…, even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative… estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.”
 
So the VPC is absolutely LYING about self-defense use of guns. But the other thing that they do here is they move the goalposts from just defensive use of guns to outright stopping crimes and KILLING the criminals.
 
Depending on the context of the defensive use of the gun, chances are that some sort of crime is being stopped or prevented. DGUs can vary from preventing rape, murder, assault, etc. to stopping a shooter or a mugger or a robber. So one’s definition of “stopping a crime” can be rather varied. But in a way, using guns to stop any of these constitutes as stopping a crime, so the VPC is outright wrong about that.
 
Secondly, the argument of “guns are rarely used to kill the criminals” is irrelevant because DGUs are not about killing the criminal but about SELF-DEFENSE as the name suggests. If one is capable of brandishing a firearm and scaring away a criminal, that counts as a DGU. The gun doesn’t have to be discharged. Furthermore, killing the criminal is not exactly every gun owner’s desire, even if they are put into a position where they have to use their gun.
 
Kleck also noted that “Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs.”
 
So the argument of “criminals are rarely killed by gun owners” is a red-herring argument. Killing the criminal is not a gun-owner’s primary intention when using a gun for self-defense or for the defense of another person.
 
But do you see how they try to “debate”? They don’t argue the issues, they position things so that they are in their favor, using favorable language. “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals” as though that was their purpose.
 
So you have to be able to fight back against that b.s. because their entire line of arguments are based on erroneous premises.
 
At any rate, the report continued: “Recognizing that Blacks and Latinos are already disproportionately impacted by lethal gun violence, these efforts can only increase death and injury in these communities.” See what I mean by erroneous premises basing their line of argumentation? “Guns are bad and selling guns to minorities is, therefore, bad.” Never mind the fact that that is wrong and that it only makes sense to market and sell to people who are MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE.
 
The guns are already in the hands of the criminals, so what sense does it make to keep the innocent from being able to defend themselves? The Left doesn’t answer that because, again, their entire premise rests on the “fact” that guns aren’t helpful for those who wield them defensively.
 
They don’t ask themselves if their underlying premise is wrong at any capacity. It’s like atheists trying to figure out the reason as to why people are so religious based on their faulty premise of “since God doesn’t exist, why is there religion?” They preface their question with a massive presupposition that God doesn’t exist, but don’t even bother to question whether or not that presupposition is correct.
 
That’s what the VPC was doing and what the Left often does. Truly, they make for awful scientists, in this way. Instead of asking if their hypothesis is correct and trying to find the data that proves it isn’t, they assume that it is correct and try to find the data that proves that it is.
 
It’s part of the reason they are so insistent on the idea that there are a bajillion genders.
 
So they assume that guns are pretty exclusively used for crimes and can only hurt gun owners (as though they were sentient beings), do not question that basic premise, and go on to charge that those whom are willing to market and sell guns to minorities do so in order to bring harm upon them, when that is far from the truth.
 
They make charges like the following: “Along with the hope of increased gun sales, a corollary goal of this effort is to turn more Blacks and Latinos, who historically support gun violence prevention measures, into pro-gun advocates for future political battles.”
 
So they charge that the self-defense marketing is not the true intention of the gun industry (without evidence) and they only target minorities for financial and political profit. Because black people and Latinos are incapable of holding independent thought, seemingly.
 
Again, take note of the favorable language that they use. Who wouldn’t support gun violence prevention measures? To be against that would basically mean being in favor of gun violence, right? It’s all b.s. because anyone with half a brain could understand that “gun violence prevention measures” only lead to further gun violence because that’s what gun control tends to lead to. Chicago is a city with plenty of “gun violence prevention measures” and some of the highest crime rates in the country. Disarming those willing to follow the law doesn’t lead to less unlawful acts – matter of fact, it only leads to more of them.
 
And as far as “turning them pro-gun” goes, 1) what’s wrong with wanting people to be more willing to protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights? And 2) Planned Parenthood basically does the same thing by installing abortion clinics in black and Latino neighborhoods, so how is that any different? PP specifically targets and markets to minorities to brainwash them into thinking that their babies are burdens not too dissimilar to cancerous tumors so that they go into those clinics and get an abortion.
 
Planned Parenthood is in the business of ethnic cleansing and no one bats an eye, but if the gun industry wants minorities to be able to protect themselves, that is an outrage? We can see, clearly, where the priorities of the Left lie: only they get to be protected by guns and have the ability to live, while the “weeds” must be rid of in the womb and, if necessary, on the streets.
 
There is good reason I call the Left evil and there is good reason I consider them to be black people’s number one enemy (as well as the enemy of just about everyone who is sane).
 
They want to kill minorities in the womb and leave them unable to protect themselves out of the womb.
 
Will the Left’s racism never end?
 
Micah 2:1
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”

There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Left and everyone who supports their demonic policies. The primary reason, in my mind, is that their policies always, 100% of the time result in pain, death and suffering for all who are subjected to that crap. Almost regardless of the policy the Left wishes to implement, someone is made to seriously suffer as a consequence, and often times, by design.
 
And not unexpectedly, Leftist policies, as well as narrative hatred of the police, have resulted in 2020 seeing the largest percentage increase in homicides in the history of the country.
 
WSJ opinion writer and crime analyst Heather Mac Donald reports that the country “saw the largest percentage increase in homicides” in its history, with murder rates rising, on average, nearly 40% across 57 of the largest cities in the nation.
 
Mac Donald writes: “The local murder increases in 2020 were startling: 95% in Milwaukee, 78% in Louisville, Ky., 74% in Seattle, 72% in Minneapolis, 62% in New Orleans, and 58% in Atlanta, according to data compiled by crime analyst Jeff Asher. Dozens of children, overwhelmingly black, were killed in drive-by shootings. They were slain in their beds, living rooms, and strollers. They were struck down at barbecues, in their yards, in malls, in their parents’ cars, and at birthday parties. Fifty-five children were killed in Chicago in 2020, 17 in St. Louis, and 11 in Philadelphia. In South Los Angeles alone, 40 children were shot, some non-lethally, through September.”
 
All throughout the country, major cities saw major increases in crime, particularly in shootings and murders. The St. Louis murder rate skyrocketed the most in roughly 50 years, Chicago saw its deadliest day since the mid-1960s in May and even Texas saw statewide hikes in murder.
 
Now, a liberal might say: “Well, clearly, it’s not simply Leftist policies if Texas is on here.” Well, the reason Texas is on here is because of its five major cities all seeing major upticks in murder, with three of the five being run by Democrats and one of the two not run by Democrats is run by a Leftist Independent. So Leftists run four of the five cities seeing major upticks in these egregious crimes, kind of how it usually tends to be, as President Trump has pointed out in the past.
 
Even then, let’s not forget that the current governor of Texas, though a Republican, has chosen to follow the Left on the implementation of lockdowns. Leftist policies and hatred are the main cause of these upticks in crime.
 
Jeff Asher also noted that just about every city reporting on crime data for 2020 saw an increase in crime.
 
“Murder up 36.7% in 57 agencies with data through at least September (though most have data through November). Murder up in 51 of 57, 37 of 58 agencies reporting murder up more than 30%.” Asher also added that the worst increase prior to 2020 was back in the mid-1990s when gang violence was at its peak. “The largest national % increase ever reported (data since 1960) was 12.7% in 1968 and the largest # increase was 1,938 in 1990. A 15% increase this year (and I think it’ll be much larger) would mean 2,400 more murders & be the worst one year increase in murder ever recorded.”
 
Most outlets acknowledge that there is at least some correlation between the lockdowns and this increase in crime. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, ironically, said: “It’s clearly related, in part, to the coronavirus and to the fact that people are cooped up. And it’s certainly related to the fact that the criminal justice system is on pause and that’s causing a lot of problems.”
 
Lord, give me strength not to slap this man over the internet.
 
So, basically, the jackass does two things here: He admits that the lockdowns have, at least in part, led to an increase in crime… with next to zero intentions of opening back up in full, and he says that the “criminal justice system is on pause.”
 
Is it? Could it perhaps be because you have thrown the NYPD under the bus following the death of George Floyd and basically handcuffed them when trying to deal with the riots that followed that event? Could it perhaps be because people tend to spend more time in Monopoly jail than they do in a New York jail?
 
Look, ever since the lockdowns started and police have raided people’s homes for *daring* to hold birthday parties or funeral services, and have focused on jailing people walking completely alone on a beach or spending some time with their families at a park, I haven’t exactly been particularly fond of the police. When they are unjustly attacked and blamed for the death of a criminal by the Left, I will defend them, so long as they are defensible. If they are more concerned with going on Palmer raids to people’s houses of worship and arresting people peacefully gathering to protest the lockdowns, all the while they ignore the protests against THEMSELVES, then why should I defend them?
 
I have no issue with backing the blue, so long as the blue don’t turn their backs to the people. But even while I do have issues with how they have just been “following orders” Nuremberg Trial style, the fact remains that they were basically left to fend for themselves by A LOT of politicians after the George Floyd incident.
 
Even despite the facts that came after the fact, such as that Floyd did not die of asphyxiation by the officer kneeling on his neck (still question why it had to be for eight minutes, but new video showed that Floyd was largely non-compliant, so I cannot be as angry with the officer as I initially was) and instead died of a Fentanyl overdose, people (in large part because of the fake news media) still believe that George Floyd was killed by the officer kneeling on his neck. And following this incident, there were weeks and months of rioting which resulted in the deaths of dozens of people, among which were police officers who had nothing to do with the incident.
 
There were calls from Leftists to “defund the police”, a matter which is not favored by the vast majority of Americans and which failed to come to pass even in the most Leftist of cities (perhaps because some politicians realized they kind of need the police to be functional in order to protect, if nothing else, them). Antifa and other Leftists began to riot and protest, chanting things like “ACAB” (All Cops Are Bastards) as well as “defund the police.”
 
And, again, Leftist politicians like de Blasio (and don’t forget Cuomo) basically threw the NYPD under the bus as often as they could to try and “appease” the mob. For crying out loud, de Blasio’s own DAUGHTER joined in on the riots and was arrested for it (before being promptly released because nepotism).
 
Morale was at an all-time low for countless officers not only in New York but in places like Atlanta, Chicago, etc., and it’s why we saw so many stories about large numbers of officers either quitting or retiring. They generally risk their lives to protect people who don’t like them or what they do and consider them a menace, get yelled at by some annoying college-indoctrinated white girl about how they are racists (even if they are minorities), are often portrayed by the fake news media as monsters who hunt down black people, are considered as such by celebrities, and are left to fend for themselves by the politicians running those cities who DEPEND on their protection.
 
Being a cop is a stressful job without all of those things being added on. The kind of mental strength required to survive, let alone thrive in such a job is rare. Only one who is just about entirely apathetic to the bullcrap of all of it would be best suited to go about their jobs and an apathetic cop is not what one would want. Unbiased, sure, but not apathetic.
 
So it’s no wonder that crime is surging as much as it is. Leftist policies and hatred of police have created environments where crime is just about ENCOURAGED. When celebrities like LeBron James watch a video of a man shooting at a parked patrol car with officers inside it and isn’t really shocked and saddened by it, that drives the message that crime and violence are okay when directed at a certain group of people.
 
In this case, the police are the targets, and for Leftists, it’s open season.
 
Well, unless people storm the Capitol, at which point cops are good again, solely because they are facing against Trump supporters (to some extent, at least. Antifa was confirmed to have instigated the riot and the storming of the government building).
 
Leftists only bring violence and pain and death with their policies and their hatred. This much shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, and certainly it isn’t surprising to me. But it’s good to take note of all of this just to remind oneself how vile and disgusting our enemies are.
 
May God curse the Left in this life, for we know they certainly will be in the next.
 
Revelation 21:8
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science – not Joe Biden’s record of racism, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency. Biden further diminished the U.S. in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban. This new “African Ban” is designed to make it harder for black and brown people to immigrate to the United States. It’s a disgrace, and we cannot let him succeed.
 
If any of that first paragraph sounds familiar to you, it’s because much of that is what Occupier Biden said about President Trump’s travel bans from Europe and China, back when those were the hotspots of the Chinese coronavirus. Biden accused the president of not leading with science, of having a record of “hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering” and that his “African Ban” was only birthed out of racism to make it more difficult for non-whites to come to the U.S.
 
And yet, despite all of these charges, Joe Biden is doing pretty much the EXACT same thing that President Trump did regarding traveling during this pandemic. Occupier Biden is banning travel for non-residents in South Africa, much of Europe, the UK, and Brazil.
 
Clearly, xenophobe Joe Biden is only doing this because he is a racist (and has an extensive record of it) and a xenophobe and not at all because it is the logical thing to do.
 
NBC News reported on this disgusting racist’s travel ban:
 
“[Occupier] Joe Biden plans to sign restrictions Monday on travel to the United States to mitigate Covid-19 transmission, two White House officials confirmed Sunday.”
 
“The ban would prevent most non-U.S. citizens from entry if they have recently been in South Africa, where a new strain of Covid-19 has been identified. The virus has killed more than 418,000 people and infected upward of 25 million across the U.S., according to an NBC News tracker.”
 
“Biden is also expected to reinstate broader restrictions that were in effect much of the past year but were rescinded by President Donald Trump days before his term ended. The limits would affect non-U.S. citizens traveling from the United Kingdom, Ireland and much of Europe in what is known as the Schengen countries, which share a common visa process. Travelers from Brazil would also be affected.”
 
Well, clearly, because he is targeting South Africa, which is 80% black, and Brazil, which is 43% multi-racial, the guy is doing this because he is a massive racist and xenophobe.
 
Two can play at this asinine game of pretending everything is about race. Obviously, this action is a logical one. You don’t want much mobility across different countries when in the middle of a pandemic. Our borders must be thoroughly enforced and travel restricted.
 
But these are the SAME actions that Trump took at the start of it all (when it mattered the most) and everyone on the Left, including the Occupier himself, attacked him for these actions.
 
Remember when Joe Biden repeatedly promised that he would do a better job of handling the coronavirus and proceeded to not give a single example of what he would do differently to Trump? Literally two days after inauguration, Joe Biden said: “There is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”
 
Two days in and the guy basically gives up on his promise to “build back better” and to “gain control” of the pandemic. Not a surprising outcome, but what is surprising is how quickly he came to admitting this. Actually, it’s surprising he even admitted it in the first place, but Joe has never exactly been very smart with words… or at all.
 
It’s no wonder, then, that he enters office with the lowest approval rating for any incoming administration at just 48%. Both Obama and Trump entered office considerably more popular, with 67% and 56% approval, respectively. Whatever “hope” and “change” he promised to Americans throughout his candidacy was pretty much extinguished in less than 48 hours. And whatever actions he does take regarding the virus are not different in any way to how Trump handled it.
 
The “ideas” he proposed throughout his candidacy are all ideas which Trump either had already brought up days, weeks or months prior, or had already implemented days, weeks, or months prior.
 
Something I wish Trump had said during at least one of the debates against Biden regarding his handling of the virus is the following: Trump would turn to Biden and say “so what’s your plan to deal with the virus? I haven’t heard it yet and you have yet to tell anyone. The ideas you brought up are things that I already implemented or talked about well before you did, so what’s your plan? It’s not that you would do anything different from me. It’s that you would do the exact same things that I’ve done, only far too late.”
 
Would something like that have changed the course of the election? Considering the election was outright stolen, I’m compelled to say “no”, but it would have gotten some people, perhaps, to reconsider their (actually legitimate) vote for Biden.
 
The main thing that Biden ran on is that Trump was screwing everything up regarding the virus. Had Trump pointed out that Biden had either 1) not shared how his plan was different from the president’s and 2) come up with “ideas” which were no different to what Trump was already doing, and that at least does a little *something* regarding how people viewed Trump’s handling of the virus.
 
But there’s hardly any point in discussing this. The election was already stolen and Biden is the occupier of the oval office.
 
However, it’s worth pointing out just why it is that no one ought to ever vote for the Left. There are, of course, a million and one reasons to not vote for Leftists, but this is at least one of them: they are liars and hypocrites.
 
Biden never shared his strategy with dealing with the virus because he had no strategy. Certainly no strategy which was different or better from Trump’s, perhaps with the only differences being the imposition of unconstitutional (and unenforceable) mask mandates and the shuttering of the economy, which no one can reasonably argue are good strategies. Even then, those are not Biden’s own ideas (though he is known as a serial plagiarizer) and are things other politicians, both state governors and foreign leaders, have implemented.
 
Now, a liberal might, for some reason, argue that Biden didn’t share his strategy “because he didn’t want Trump to steal it and take credit for it.” Okay, but if the strategy was better, why wouldn’t he want to share it with THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?! Even if he’s running against him, why would he withhold a strategy that could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives (btw, this is on the erroneous presumption that the virus is as deadly as they say it is)?
 
Wouldn’t it have been the right thing to share those ideas and strategies anyway, even if Trump stole them and took credit for them? I thought Biden was the nice and decent and considerate candidate who was basically Jesus’ long lost brother, or something?
 
So either Biden had no strategy whatsoever and just lied to people to get them to vote for him, or he prioritized winning an election over people’s lives. Either way, he doesn’t exactly come off as decent or someone who ought to hold any kind of office.
 
In a just world, he certainly wouldn’t, that’s for sure.
 
But since he does hold office, illegitimate as it may be, I have no intention of being merciful or graceful with the demon. Why would I not call him a racist and xenophobe for instituting these travel bans which heavily impact people of color? It’s what he did to Trump. Why would I give him any sort of grace or credit? He never showed any to his political opponent.
 
Joe Biden is a massive racist anyway, as I have already pointed out. This move, I consider to have been done due to race. Joe Biden wants to keep black and brown people out of the country and this much proves it.
 
Democrats set up these rules, I’m just doing my part to force them to play by them.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”

I am not a Catholic whatsoever and find many faults with the Catholic theology and doctrine. However, despite those differences, I know very well that to be a Catholic still means to be a Christian, and simply professing one’s faith does not mean that one possesses such faith.
 
That is the sort of faith that Joe Biden and other faux-Christian Democrats have professed for decades and even most recently, as the media has attempted to portray Joe Biden as a “devout Catholic” particularly before the election to try and take away some of the evangelical vote from Trump (even though evangelicals are not Catholic). That any of these killers of the young and old would consider themselves Christian is deeply insulting to anyone who actually is a Christian.
 
Despite that, they do, indeed, call themselves “Christians” or “Catholics” and have people within the Church backing them up (the devil attends church, after all). Actual Christians, however, recognize the fact that such people are not really Christian and do not stand for anything that is Christian.
 
Archbishop Jose Gomez, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is one such Christian who sees the evil morals that Biden holds, at least for the most part.
 
Gomez issued the following statement on Wednesday, saying that “working with [Occupier] Biden will be unique… as he is our first [occupier] in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.”
 
“Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor – all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.”
 
I’m far more certain it wasn’t his “faith” which brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, but remembering that he is obscenely wealthy and in a good position as part of the Washington Establishment to make far more money still. This, obviously, is where I wholeheartedly disagree with Gomez, as I find no actual faith within Joe Biden. Certainly, none of his policies and actions are indicative of someone who trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor? The economy is shut down and he wants MORE of that, which will only hurt the vast majority of people and especially those who were already poor.
 
Saying on the campaign trail that he would help the poor or the working class or whatever is not actually doing any of those things, particularly if his policies will not help the poor but only serve to further enrich himself and his Wall Street buddies.
 
Biden serves only himself and those who can help him at any capacity. The poor are nothing to him except servants at his feet.
 
But at any rate, Gomez continued:
 
“[A]s pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new [Occupier] has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.”
 
“Our commitments on issues of human sexuality and the family, as with our commitments in every other area – such as abolishing the death penalty or seeking a health care system and economy that truly serves the human person – are guided by Christ’s great commandment to love and to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, especially the most vulnerable,” Gomez continued.
 
For the most part, this is good stuff. I disagree on the issue of the death penalty, as the death penalty is reserved for those whom deserve its harsh punishment, namely killers. Genesis 9:5-6 says: “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.’” And Exodus 21:12 says: “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.”
 
And regarding the health care system and economy, I agree only insofar as the Left has destroyed both and changed it enough to really only benefit the wealthy and not give the little people the ability to compete. Just look at Parler trying to compete with Twitter and getting utterly nuked off of the internet to see what I mean. Not to mention that the Wayfair ruling of 2018 (though a “conservative” majority was responsible for that ruling) is the primary reason as to why we don’t have a store to sell merchandise, as selling things online to people outside of our own state would require more financial and legal muscle than we have.
 
But with that small tangent out of the way, let’s get back to the overall grievances of actual Catholics against the faux-Christian Democrats like Joe Biden.
 
“For the nation’s bishops,” Gomez continued, “the continued injustice of abortion remains the ‘preeminent priority.’ Preeminent does not mean ‘only.’ We have deep concerns about many threats to human life and dignity in our society. But as Pope Francis teaches, we cannot stay silent when nearly a million unborn lives are being cast aside in our country year after year through abortion.”
 
This made a lot of faux-Christians mad, such as the Vatican and the Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich, though interestingly, most of their complaints were regarding procedure which seemingly Gomez broke with issuing that statement. That isn’t to say that the Chicago cardinals agree with Gomez, as they were pretty clearly in support of Biden and calling the statement “ill-considered”.
 
Biden’s press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about this, and only said that Biden “attends church regularly” which is a non-answer. Attending church doesn’t mean someone is a Christian.
 
One of Biden’s first executive orders was about forcing educational institutions which receive government funding (that is to say, most of them) must allow biologically male athletes on the women’s teams and forces girls to share restrooms and locker rooms with boys if the boys wanted to use those facilities.
 
He has constantly reiterated his commitment to killing as many babies as he can with pro-abortion legislation and has told people he fully intends on lifting the Mexico City policy which bans NGOs which promote and provide abortion internationally, and intends on lifting the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from going to domestic abortion providers.
 
For that one issue alone, he is utterly disqualified from even calling himself a Christian. No Christian would EVER be in support of abortion because abortion is murder, no matter how you dress it up.
 
So Gomez is entirely correct to note that Biden would advance moral evils. Biden is morally evil himself and there is NO defending him, no matter what one tries to do. The Left views evil as good and good as evil and when in power, demonstrate it at its worst.
 
I pray that we will one day crush the evils of the Left and make abortion as morally detestable as the Holocaust, seeing as abortion is a holocaust in itself.
 
Proverbs 8:13
“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.”

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.
 
Romans 2:3
“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.
 
Matthew 7:15
“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.
 
Daniel 2:21
“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.
 
Acts 5:29
“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.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”