If you’ve read some news regarding the Hollywood actress (and I don’t blame you if you didn’t), you’ll know that she has decided to “take a break from acting” so that, in her words, she could “help fix our democracy”. Aside from the fact that we’re a constitutional republic, not a democracy, I’m somewhat interested in finding out just what she could mean by that.
But that’s for me to think about at another time. For now, let’s focus on one surprising thing she said during an interview with Vanity Fair.
“The Democrats made a huge mistake by chastising the Trump supporters, and that was disgusting to me.”
I’m surprised at the level of potential intelligence this girl possesses. If she were just like any other brainless Hollywood celebrity, she would’ve just relentlessly attacked Trump and those who voted for him. Essentially turning her acting career into a full-time CNN job without a show. But it looks like she’s not quite as braindead as her peers. There may be hope for her yet. After all, she’s only 27 years old. She could still grow out of a Leftist mindset.
Winston Churchill is, by most, attributed for saying: “if you’re not a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by 40, you have no brain.” If that is true (fair enough, it’s not quite for every case. i.e.: me), then J-Law still has a chance to not be utterly brainwashed by the Left.
But that’s not all she said. She also said: “Of course they’re not going to vote for Hillary Clinton; they’re going to vote for Donald Trump. You laughed at them when their plight is very real.” Again, a smart observation… perhaps. I don’t know if, when she mentions our plight, she means it to be a plight of being swayed (or, in Leftist words, “conned” or “fooled”) by Trump or a plight of having the feeling that we’re losing our country. Because the latter was our plight. That’s what every single Trump supporter felt at the end of Obama’s tenure (and for most, throughout his 8 years in office).
I’m not sure which “plight” she’s referencing here, so I’ll simply let it be. I won’t give her too much credit by supposing the latter but I also won’t insult and discredit her by supposing the former.
She then mentioned that Trump was “a big powerful man in a nice suit, pointing at you going, ‘I’m going to make you rich’. It’s so appealing.”
And that’s really where I will contend with her. Not a single one of us for one second believe that he was “going to make us rich.” He’s not Santa Claus. If he were, he’d be a Democrat. That’s the sort of promise Democrats tend to make. They are always promising to give out free stuff that would usually cost a decent bit of money. Free stuff such as un-ending social programs that only make people poorer and keep them below the poverty line.
It’s the kind of promise that someone like Bernie Sanders would make. And if there’s one thing that everyone in America can agree on is that Trump is nothing like Bernie Sanders.
Not one of us believe he’s going to make us rich. What we believe is that he will make it easier for people to have better economic opportunities. These opportunities come in the form of more jobs coming to the country and overall better prospects for small businesses. He’s not going to make us rich. He’s going to Make America Great Again. And part of that is Making America Rich Again (well, richer).
J-Law then said: “I’ve always thought that it was a good idea to stay out of politics. 25% of America defines as liberal and I need more than 25% of America to go see my movies. It’s not wise, career-speaking, to talk about politics.”
I have mixed feelings about this one. For one, what she says makes sense. Politics, by definition, are always polarizing. If you want to have a big fan-base, it’s usually best to not be political and simply focus on your craft. Personally, I tend not to watch movies that star people I don’t like. I’ve stopped watching movies in theaters largely because of that. And it’s a real shame, as well. Some of my all-time favorite movies are by people who are ultra-Leftist and I dislike politically. Movies like Blades of Glory (Will Ferrell) and Ace Ventura (Jim Carrey) just to name a couple. I still love the movies, but I don’t feel that way whatsoever about the stars.
Same principle applies to television. Shows like How I Met Your Mother (basically the entire cast), Full House (Bob Saget, but I understand that Candace Cameron (DJ Tanner) is a Christian) and The Big Bang Theory (Simon Helberg AKA Howard Wolowitz) I love and enjoy, but don’t feel the same way about the people themselves.
So I can understand her reasoning behind her words. The thing about that is it doesn’t seem to matter whatsoever to many other celebrities. People like Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro, Leonardo DiCaprio and even J-Law herself have all gotten themselves involved into politics. The very reason I’m even WRITING this article is because she’s getting political herself.
The people I’ve mentioned are HUGE names in Hollywood and they will tend to be fine in terms of popularity. Personally, I don’t like any of them (though J-Law is, as of this moment, better in my eyes than the others) and will likely never bother to see any of their movies. But that really doesn’t matter to them. Since they’re huge names in Hollywood, they’re part of an elite group (and sure as heck act like it) that only cares about what each other thinks. It’s all one massive group-think that they’ve got going on.
Conservative celebrities like James Woods get completely blacklisted and are attacked for their views, more so if they are outspoken about their conservative values. Just look at a tweet made by Chris Pratt about praying for a good friend of his and see the disgusting replies that he got due to it.
Granted, I haven’t seen any other celebrity attack him, but there’s really nothing to stop them from doing so and come out worse for the wear. Hollywood celebrities are more than allowed to voice a liberal opinion and will likely not suffer much due to it. Not that they should, they have the right to speak their minds. But there’s an ever-present bias in Hollywood and media. Conservatives are destroyed (or at least silenced) and liberals are celebrated.
So while what she says does make sense, it’s not something that actually applies to anyone. While I’d be willing to watch a movie that features people with no expressed political opinions, I’d also be more willing to watch a movie that features people (or at least one person) with a conservative point of view.
Some years ago, Vince Vaughn said that he was conservative. I’m more willing to watch his movies than someone like Jim Carrey, who’s a Leftist lunatic. Chris Pratt is open about his faith in Christ, so I’m more willing to watch his movies than someone who would insult Christ and His followers. Tom Selleck is a major leader in the NRA, so I’m more willing to watch shows he stars in. Melissa Joan Hart (Sabrina the Teenage Witch) is a Christian and I’m more willing to watch movies and shows she’s in.
And if 25% of America defines as liberal, it follows that people like them should all be massive stars; bigger than DeNiro, Streep and DiCaprio. But that’s not the case. For one, acting skills also have to be a big part. For as much as I dislike DiCaprio, I’d be a stubborn fool to say that he’s not a good actor. Same goes for Jim Carrey and Will Ferrell.
But it’s also the fact that Hollywood is a Leftist’s paradise and a conservative’s Sodom (objectively, Hollywood really is Sodom, but not to the Left).
Regardless, let’s return to J-Law. It’s honestly rather surprising to see her saying all of this. And it’s true. The Left have treated Trump supporters pretty terribly. While their focus lies mostly on Trump, they have also come out to attack his supporters. It wasn’t that long ago that CNN doxed a Trump supporter and harassed her, interrogating her about a pro-Trump event that was held by Russian trolls despite the fact that Michael Moore (yet another uber-Leftist who’s not even a good actor or director) attended and was a big part of an anti-Trump rally also held by these Russian trolls (as did CNN themselves).
And perhaps the biggest culprit in everyone’s minds when it comes to attacking Trump supporters has to be Hillary Clinton. After all, the reason we proudly call ourselves “deplorables” are due to her comments saying that she could put half of Trump’s supporters in a basket of deplorables.
So J-Law is absolutely right in mentioning just how badly the Democrats, and, by extension, the media, have treated Trump supporters. Not that we’re complaining, really. Other than the CNN dox, we’re more than ok with these idiots treating us badly. It just reflects more poorly on them than on us. And it solidifies our reason to not vote Democrat.
Calling us racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, hicks, religious nuts, gun nuts, Nazis and fascists only serves to make us chuckle. It’s all indicative that the Left cannot fight in the realm of ideas and opts to call us names like the 2nd graders they are at heart and at mind. It also doesn’t serve them well that Antifa thugs break things and vandalize things like small children throwing a tantrum every time things don’t go their way.
Remember the vandal girl from yesterday’s article? On whom do her actions reflect? The “Nazi” professor? The “fascist” guests? Trump? No, it reflects on the collective Left. She made herself out to be a spoiled little brat who breaks things when she’s mad. And yes, despite the fact that she’s likely no older than me (I’m assuming she’s attending the school and I’m the age of a college senior) even I can recognize her childish actions. Problem for her is that she will likely have to face adult consequences (aka paying for the damage she caused).
So despite the fact that what the media and the Left is disgusting in attacking us, we welcome it. It’s just more ammunition to use against the Left.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
Taking a break from talking about the Parkland high school shooting, I want to focus on a rather intriguing and funny video depicting just how illogical and brainwashed some Leftists (more specifically, millennials) are.
Some time ago, Portland State University (a college I almost went to) held an event discussing the differences between men and women. The event was hosted by PSU philosophy professor Peter Boghossian and featured a biologist by the name of Heather E. Heying, writer Helen Pluckrose, and former Google engineer James DaMore, the very engineer that was fired by Google for writing a memo about the biological differences between men and women and women’s natural disinterest in engineering.
Now, the video below is nearly 2 hours long, but the most important things for this article occur between the 18 minute mark and the 22 minute mark.
Professor Boghossian begins by asking what “social constructivism” is. Helen Pluckrose answered, saying: “It’s the idea that all of our traits, our characteristics, abilities, cognitive, psychological, behavioral, are learned from societal norms; the idea that there can be innate or biological or inherited differences are dismissed. And so, we’re in a position where if there is injustice, or if there is an imbalance anywhere, sort of an inequality of representation, then the explanation for that can be the societal injustice.”
The professor then turned to Heying, asking: “What can we take from what Helen said to help us make sense of James’ memo?”
Helen responded with: “James argues, accurately, that there are differences between men and women. This is a strange position to be in, to be arguing for something that is so universally and widely accepted within biology. What is not as widely accepted is that culture’s also evolutionary; but I’m going to argue that both biology and culture are both evolutionary. Let’s look at differences between men and women that are explicitly anatomical and physiological; are men taller than women on average? Does anyone take offense at that fact? I would say you could be irritated by it; you could be irritated by the fact that women have to be the ones who gestate and lactate; you could be irritated by a lot of truths…”
It was at this point that snowflake millennials were triggered enough to up and leave the room.
Heying continued: “… but taking offense is a response that is a reflection of reality. So, men and women are different on height; they’re different on muscle mass; they’re different on where fat is deposited on our bodies. Our brains are also different.”
At this point, another enraged lunatic millennial knocked over something in the back of the auditorium, sabotaging the sound system. Due to that, security was called on them.
The video then cuts to the girl who destroyed the sound system being escorted to the lobby by security. She begins ranting, saying: “He’s a piece of s**t. That is not okay. Even the women in there have been brainwashed.”
Then another triggered snowflake said: “… should not listen to fascism. It should not be tolerated in civil society. Nazis are not welcome in civil society.”
Then, the triggered snowflakes left, with the vandal girl saying: “F**k the police! Power to the people!”
Which I simply had to laugh at.
I’ll get back to these idiots in a second. First, I want to mention what immediately followed inside the auditorium.
Professor Boghossian said: “All right, we’re going to raise our voices. The conversation’s going to go on.” Which prompted cheers and applause from the people in the audience who were mature and smart enough to stay and listen. He continued by calling out these hoodlums, saying: “Let me be crystal clear: that sort of behavior is unacceptable in civilized society (prompting more applause). And if that person is a student, they should be given a warning, and if they do it again they should be expelled from the university.”
I applaud the professor for calling out at least the vandal girl for the damage. It’s just as he said: that sort of behavior is simply unacceptable in civil society.
Which brings me back to the triggered snowflakes. I find it very amusing the things they said. The vandal called, presumably the professor, a “piece of s**t”. For what? Hosting an event that talks about reality. And, as we all know, these children are altogether allergic to reality.
She mentions that even the women in there have been brainwashed. Really? The biologist is brainwashed for speaking scientific facts? The writer in there is brainwashed for correctly defining the very Leftist mindset? And let’s not forget: this is Portland State University.
I used to live in Portland, Oregon. It’s uber-Leftist over there. Do you know what the city’s motto is? “Keep Portland weird.” As though normalcy is blasphemous and abnormality is to be celebrated. So I’m not at all surprised to see such idiots attending this college. What I am surprised at is the fact that the faculty (or at least the one professor) isn’t so Leftist (politics really didn’t play a role here, but these students made it political) and that he was realistic enough to know that there are biological and realistic differences between the genders.
What I’m surprised about is that they had speakers there talking about reality as it is, not as they see it politically.
Good on them for hosting this event to talk about reality.
But returning to the vandal girl, who’s the one who is brainwashed here? She refuses to accept reality and insults the people who try to explain it and goes so far as to deliberately destroy equipment used to talk about reality. She’s acting just like a good pawn for the Left.
Then, we have the guy that is literally calling them fascist and Nazis. He mentioned that fascists should not be tolerated in civil society. That Nazis shouldn’t be tolerated in civil society. Why is calling the very real differences between men and women a form of Nazi or fascist talk? It’s not. The only reason he says that is because he disagrees with what is being said. And anything that he disagrees with is automatically called fascism or Nazism.
These kids truly don’t understand what Nazism and fascism is. I’m a millennial myself but still have a better understanding of its horrors. I may not have experienced it (thank the Lord for that) but I know history. I know how horrible they are from understanding history. And I also know how Leftist these two things are.
Which is why I also have to laugh when the vandal girl says “power to the people.” What form of government gives power to the people? Communism does the literal opposite, as does fascism and Nazism. The three all derive from Marxism and all talk about a centralized state being in rule. So how is that giving power to the people?
For all the times that people like them call Trump a “fascist” and a “Nazi”, they are seemingly quite free to slander him and his name. Do you think they fear an occasion similar to the Night of the Long Knives, an operation by the Nazis to execute their opponents and consolidate Hitler’s absolute power in Germany? Do you think they fear Trump will have members of the police or military take people like Maxine Waters (despite how corrupt she is), Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, John McCain and others and execute them?
Do you think they fear he will do what Mussolini did when he took over the presses and had a prominent opponent of his (Giacomo Matteotti) murdered? Do you think they fear Trump will take over CNN and have Chris Cuomo killed? Of course not!
Despite the fact that they constantly call him a fascist, he’s the furthest person in Washington from fascism. From Nazism.
Let me tell you, those who support gun control are closer to fascism and Nazism than those who don’t. Those who support abortion are closer to fascism and Nazism than those who don’t. Those who support censoring people who disagree with them are closer to fascism and Nazism than those who don’t. Those who support increasing the size of the government are closer to fascism and Nazism than those who don’t.
These triggered snowflakes have absolutely no idea what it is they’re talking about. They speak as though they understand the world and everything in it when nothing could be further from the truth. They don’t just ignore reality, they flat out reject it. That much is evident by this video. They are utterly disconnected from reality and hate the very idea of it. They want to make their own reality and will likely die in the process (because you can’t live outside of reality), if cleaning detergent doesn’t kill them first.
I find myself wondering if we can make a deal with China to trade our millennials. I’ll take millennials who are disinterested in just about everything including communism over millennials that altogether reject reality.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
The content being talked about begins roughly at the 18 minute mark.
The Crappiest Name in News is back at it again, this time defending Nikolas Cruz, the SHOOTER of a high school in Parkland, Florida, from comments made by the POTUS. They hate the President so much that they’d rather side with the shooter over him, it seems.
Trump sent out a series of tweets recently. The tweets read: “I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News CNN & NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving ‘concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience’ – only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions. Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A ‘gun free’ school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!”
“History shows that a school shooting lasts, on average, 3 minutes. It takes police & first responders approximately 5 to 8 minutes to get to the site of crime. Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches would solve the problem instantly, before the police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!”
“If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there… problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work!”
So we can see why CNN has a problem with these tweets. They offer a solution that would actually work, which is the last thing the Left wants.
But more specifically, they condemn Trump for using the word “sicko” and asked their “experts” about the “mental damage” such words would do to someone who suffers from the same things Cruz did.
So they’ve lowered themselves to the level of DEFENDING the sicko shooter from “mean, ol’ Trump”. Can these people be any less likeable?
The article reads: “The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, struggled with depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism, according to a 2016 Florida Department of Children and Families report. But having a mental health diagnosis does not mean he would become violent, many experts say.”
DID THE EXPERTS FORGET THAT HE DID BECOME VIOLENT?! Certainly his mental health issues are part of the reason. No one in his right mind would do what he did.
“And although Trump has said he wants to focus on mental health to stop school shootings, calling Cruz a ‘sicko’ doesn’t help, those experts claim.”
What shall we call him, then? A victim of his situation? Someone who’s not quite right in his head but we shouldn’t blame him for what he did?
These questions are rhetorical, of course. To the Left, everyone is a victim. Cruz is a victim of his mental health issues. Ignore the fact that HE KILLED 17 PEOPLE! I’m sorry, but this evil and messed up bastard won’t get any sympathy from me.
As for the second rhetorical question, I wouldn’t be surprised if they really thought this way. After all, everyone on the Left is blaming the gun instead of the one to use it, or the people who failed to stop him, or the system that failed to properly help him, or the political party that has been on the warpath to destroy morality and give people their own sense of what is right and wrong for them.
To me, the gun was simply a tool. Much in the same way the Tsarnaev brothers used a cooking pot and turned it into a bomb as a tool of destruction. Much in the same way a terrorist in New York used a U-Haul truck as a tool of destruction. Much in the same way that criminals use knives, blades and hatchets in England as tools of destruction. Much in the same way terrorists on 9/11 used planes as tools of destruction.
Yet, we never heard of “cooking pot control” or “U-Haul truck control” or “Knife, blade and hatchet control” or “plane control”. We only ever hear of gun control, which is ridiculous.
Either way, I’ll get off this tangent and back on topic.
The fact that CNN would side with the shooter and victimize him just to oppose Trump might just be one of the more sickening things they’ve done in recent time. They think Trump shouldn’t call him for what he is: a sicko.
I’ll use that word as often as I can just so that it becomes engrained in these idiots’ heads. Nikolas Cruz was a sicko. He had mental health issues, and that’s unfortunate, but that doesn’t excuse his actions. Rather, it better helps explain them. That’s not to say that everyone who suffers from the same thing would shoot up a school, but it offers more of an explanation as to why he did it.
Only a sicko would shoot up any place, be it a school, church, theater, what have you. I’ve used this example before in a previous article, but I’ll use it again. Consider Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy. Let’s add Cruz to this example too.
Like I said in that article, both were evil and messed up in the head, but in different ways. I would compare Cruz to Bundy more than Hitler. Cruz, like Bundy, killed random people (though Bundy focused more on women) and was more “chaotic evil”. I offer a better explanation for such a description in that previous article.
Ted Bundy had to have something seriously wrong with him to have done what he did. He also had to have an evil heart to do what he did. The same can be said of Hitler (again, read the previous article to see how the two are different) and the same can be said of Cruz.
He was sick, of that there is no doubt. So why wouldn’t we call him a sicko? He KILLED people! No sane person does that. For CNN to defend him based on this is flat out ridiculous, if not outrageous.
Their hatred for Trump has made their minds so warped that they’d rather side with a killer than with the POTUS. And make no mistake, this is siding with him. That’s not an exaggeration.
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.”
After the most recent school shooting to strike at the heart of the country, Democrats and the Left as a whole have made sure to go after the people who are NOT responsible for this: the NRA and gun-owners/second amendment supporters.
They are very efficient in turning a national tragedy into a political game. And it’s sickening.
Recently, the Crappiest Name in News held a town hall meeting that was purely used as a means to attack anyone who defends the second amendment and was not meant to be a discussion of ideas.
But another event that occurred recently is the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC for short.
This event hosted a lot of conservatives from the President and Vice President to the leader of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre. He’s the person I’ll be focusing on most in this article.
LaPierre made the excellent point that we tend to secure a lot of things in this country, but children are not among the things we secure.
“It’s a bizarre fact that in this country our jewelry stores, all over this country, are more important than our children. Our banks, our airports, our NBA games, our NFL games, our office buildings, our movie stars, our politicians, they’re all more protected than our children in school.”
He continued with: “Does that make any sense to anybody? Do we really love our money and our celebrities more than we love our children?”
Again, this is a very good point. Why is it that every other government building is better protected than our SCHOOLS?!
Now, I know the Left’s position on this. “How dare you even suggest arming our teachers? How dare you suggest placing people with GUNS near our children? How dare you suggest we have metal detectors in our schools? That would turn schools into prison!”
All of these things are easily challenged. Why arm our teachers? Because they’ll be able to protect the children faster than the police. They’ll be able to shut down the attacker faster. If there even is an attacker in the first place. When was the last time someone attacked a police station? Or a prison?
Sickos like Nikolas Cruz, who hardly seems to even get any of the hatred from the Left, would be more hesitant to attack any place that likely has armed security. The reason shooters target theaters, churches and schools is because they tend not to be too heavily guarded by weapons, if at all.
If we trust teachers to teach our children, why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them as well? Why wouldn’t we trust them to protect them with their own weapons? But even then, we don’t have to arm the teachers. We could just have armed security as well who are payed by the school district to protect the people there, just as armed security in any other government building is tasked with protecting the people there.
But the Left has a problem with this solution, one: because it’s an actual solution and the last thing the Left needs is a solution to shootings. So long as there are shootings, they are able to shove their agenda down people’s throats. And two: because their issue is not the children’s lives, their issue is guns. They can’t begin to comprehend the concept of a good guy with a gun. To them, anyone who has a gun is a bad guy or potential bad guy.
When it comes to metal detectors, I’m admittedly more conflicted on this one. I don’t think it would be necessary to have metal detectors. Having armed security should ideally be enough. Considering most shootings happen with rifles, they’d be pretty difficult to conceal when walking into a school. Any posted security guard at any entrance would be able to see someone coming with a gun when they shouldn’t.
So metal detectors, I don’t think are necessary, but I’d still like to contend with the Left on this. I try to view things from multiple perspectives, so I’ll try to do that with this proposition as well.
Metal detectors would be an added security feature, for sure. What the Left says about it is that it would make schools look and feel like prisons. Aside from the fact that schools are already pretty similar to prisons in many ways (authoritarian structure, dress code, emphasis on silence and order, loss of individual autonomy, set times enforced for walking, eating, etc.), why would the way a school looks and feels take precedent over the safety of the children? With this argument, is the Left signifying that they care more about how things look and feel than they care about the safety and lives of children?
I wish it didn't have to come to these sort of proposals. I wish no one would dare attack a school. But we must face reality. These things happen, but we can take measures against them. We should act accordingly with things that will actually work, not gun control measures that won't help a single person.
Returning to LaPierre, he also points out that the Democrats “hate the NRA. They hate the Second Amendment. They hate individual freedom.”
“For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. Their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms, so they can eradicate all individual freedoms. Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of family, the failure of America’s mental health system and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI.”
All good points which are all correct. The Left doesn’t want a solution to this problem unless it comes as part of a nationwide guns confiscation and Second Amendment repeal, which, if you’ve read my article telling you about such a goal, would not be effective whatsoever.
They push for gun control as often as they possibly can, pointing to places like the U.K. and Australia which have implemented it and gun crime is not very high. I would like to counter that by pointing out places like Chicago, Jamaica and Honduras. All places with very strict gun control laws and all places with very high murder rates and gun crime rates.
My point is that gun control hasn’t affected the crime rates in any of the countries in any positive way. That is another piece of evidence that should convince people (though it likely won’t) that what counts is the culture in a nation, not the gun laws.
Not to mention that the U.S. has the most guns per 100 residents out of any country. And it’s not even close. According to the Small Arms Survey, the amount of guns owned per 100 residents is 88.8. Serbia comes at #2 with 58.21 and Yemen at #3 with 54.8.
Yet, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. murder rate sits at just 4.88%. There are over 90 other countries with worse rates and less guns (as we can see from the previous stat). Not to mention that there are severe population differences between the U.S., the U.K. and Australia (and the other countries).
We have the most guns out of all of these countries, the most people out of these countries, but are still among the safest in the world, particularly when accounting for our massive population.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: if guns were the issue, everyone would know it.
But guns aren’t the issue. Not that the Left would ever admit that. They hate guns and hate the fact that people can own them. Wayne LaPierre has it exactly right when he says they hate individual freedom.
Guns provide the people with freedom from the government. A concept that sounds like blasphemy in the ears of the Left.
As a side note, I find it rich that the very people that have called Trump “Hitler” are also the ones demanding he take away people’s guns.
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
CNN sent out a reporter to a Florida woman’s home to talk about a pro-Trump event that was orchestrated by Russian trolls. Given that CNN is bloodthirsty when it comes to anything involving Trump and Russians, I’m not surprised that they jumped at the opportunity to locate a private citizen, harass her and accuse her of working with the Russians, even if it was unwittingly.
The reporter harassed her and continued to ask her accusatory questions, saying that she was involved with a pro-Trump Facebook group that orchestrated the event, which seemingly was run by Russian trolls.
He accused her of being involved with the Russians, whether she knew it or not. When she defended her fellow Trump supporters who attended the rally, he accused them of being under the “direction of groups that were associated with Russians...”
He then continued accusing her, saying: “But did you realize that you guys were in communication electronically with Russians?"
It’s obvious by that last question that he does not understand what Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein meant when he said: “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”
I know for certain that CNN heard Rosenstein say that. They know that, according to Rosenstein, no American was a knowing participant in this. And yet, they look up and find this woman online, discover her address and accuse her of working with the Russians whether she knew it or not.
What they did is the very definition of doxing someone. Doxing means “to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge.”
CNN published her full name (which I won’t share since she’s a PRIVATE CITIZEN and I’m not a piece of garbage like CNN), which led to her being further harassed by online users.
I won’t share most of the comments, since they’re all pretty nasty coming from nasty people, but here are just a few:
“You should be hanged for treason!!!”
“In my opinion you should be tried for collusion with Russia. Your ignorance and inability to realize you were promoting Russian propaganda is not a defense. Look at what you’ve done. You should be ashamed of yourself.”
“You disgusting flabby skinned yellow toothed hag. Communist pig. You’re scum.”
That last one confused me a bit, since Hillary is far closer to being a Communist than Trump and his supporters are, but still an overall nasty comment.
Now, there’s a good reason I chose to share these specific comments.
You see, Leftist whacko Michael Moore attended an anti-Trump rally held at the Trump Tower called the “Trump is NOT my president” rally. This rally was also orchestrated by Russian trolls, given what Mueller uncovered for the indictments.
How is it, then, that CNN isn’t going to Michael Moore’s house and accusing him of working with the Russians? How is it that they only went after a Trump supporter and harassed her for being an unwitting participant in a Russian-troll-orchestrated event but choose to ignore that Moore did the same thing and with an even bigger voice given his celebrity status?
By the previous comments’ logic, Moore should be hanged for treason. Moore should be tried for collusion with Russia. The fact that he didn’t know he was part of it shouldn’t be an excuse and he should be ashamed of himself.
Now, since I’m a logical person, I’m not going to use these same tactics on Moore. I don’t think he should be “hanged for treason” or anything of the sort. But then, people shouldn’t suggest the female Trump supporter should be either.
Not to mention the other significant portion of Rosenstein’s revelations. There is no allegation that this altered the outcome of the election. Meaning that this whole ordeal, whether it happened or not, was not going to change the outcome of the election.
Trump won DESPITE Russian meddling in the election. Not to mention that the people recently indicted by Mueller were not part of the Kremlin. They weren’t part of the Russian government.
These Russians organized pro- and anti-Trump rallies to stir up conflict in our election and the American people participated.
The ones who attended the pro-Trump rallies were all ardent Trump supporters, not Russian agents. And the ones who attended anti-Trump rallies were all ardent Trump haters, not Russian agents.
But that’s not the point. The point is that CNN doxed an American citizen, harassed her and accused her of working with the Russians whether she knew it or not and have caused other people online to harass her as well.
CNN, by posting her full name, have made it easier for anyone to find her online profile and the city she lives in (again, I’m not going to share that because it’s private information and I’m not a scumbag like CNN).
Now, the video of the harassment doesn’t say whether or not she gave them permission to post her face or full name. If they didn’t ask and she’s getting harassed in this manner and risks being attacked by someone with better researching skills who could find her exact address, she might be able to sue CNN.
I’m no lawyer, but I know you can’t post someone’s profile like that without permission.
Regardless, it speaks to the disgusting nature of CNN and the Left as a whole for them to find a Trump supporter who’s a private citizen and harass her with accusations and releasing her full name for people to find online and further harass her.
This disgusting act paints CNN for what they are: the Crappiest Name in News. Maybe that’s what CNN stands for.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
During a CNN panel talking about the shooting at the high school in Florida, former Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ spokeswoman Symone Sanders made the attempt to make this matter not just about gun laws, but also race.
Sanders said: “If the Parkland shooter had been black or brown we wouldn’t be talking about the types of legislation we could or could not make happen. If he was yelling Allahu Akbar, Congress and the President would’ve been tweeting about it and they would’ve swooped in and did whatever they felt needed…”
Other panelists, such as Bill Kristol tried to make the point that no gun law change occurred after the San Bernardino shootings, with Sanders replying that we have a Muslim ban now.
I’ll get to that part momentarily.
First, I wanna focus on the elephant in the room. She said if the Parkland shooter had been black or brown we wouldn’t be talking about types of legislation. Either she’s insanely stupid or hasn’t been paying much attention at all about the shooter.
Ms. Sanders, I’ll put things in words that even someone like you might be able to understand.
The name of the Parkland shooter was Nikolas Cruz. Typically, that name is indicative of Hispanic descendance. Hispanics tend to count as “brown” people. If you look up his picture, you can see that he’s slightly brown. Admittedly, not too brown, but still of a darker shade than a typical white person.
My question to you then is: what in the absolute heck are you talking about? He may not be black, but he surely is brown. He’s Hispanic. And yet, people talking about this subject couldn’t care less about that. Well, everyone except you, seemingly.
That is why I believe she has either not been paying a whole lot of attention or she’s just that stupid.
Now, she did mention that he had trained with a white supremacist group. The thing about that is that it’s not true. Nikolas Cruz didn’t train with a white supremacist group. This particular fake news comes due to a report by the AP that a spokesman from Republic of Florida, a white supremacist group, “confirmed” that Cruz trained with them.
Later on, however, the story was debunked, saying that pictures taken of “Cruz” didn’t confirm his identity (the pictures showed someone concealing their face or a blurry picture) and the spokesman himself eventually said that there are multiple people in their group by the same name or at least variations of it.
So Sanders is either misinformed and spreading fake news or she’s an idiot and spreading fake news.
Now, let’s move on to the Muslim ban part of her short rant.
Do you know why we have a Muslim ban? Why we specifically disallow these particular people from certain Muslim nations from coming here? Because Islam is the only “religion” in the world that has constant problems with terrorism.
Buddhists don’t have a problem with Buddhist terrorists. Why? Because there are no Buddhist terrorists killing in the name of Buddha.
Hindus don’t have a problem with terrorists in their own religion. Why? Because there are no Hindu terrorists killing in the name of Krishna or Ganesh or Vishnu.
Jews don’t have a problem with terrorists in their own religion. Why? Because there are no Jewish terrorists that kill in the name of Yahweh.
Christians don’t have a problem with terrorists in our own religion. Why? Because there are no Christians that kill in the name of Jesus.
But Muslims have a problem with terrorists in their own religion. Why? BECAUSE ALLAH IS THE ONLY DEITY THAT ORDERS HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL PEOPLE!
On top of that, the Muslim ban doesn’t even affect all of the Muslim nations in the Middle East, only a select few.
Now, I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go into too much more detail on the actual shooting and on why no form of gun control would work. I simply wanted to share this ridiculous statement made by an insane Leftist who clearly has no idea what it is she’s talking about.
To repeat myself, Nikolas Cruz IS brown, yet, Trump and his administration aren’t doing what Sanders would expect them to do about someone who’s brown in this case. In her mind, she’s probably thinking that Cruz would be sent to Guantanamo Bay or get deported if he were black or brown. Well, he’s brown and he’s still in custody. And likely will be sent to prison for life.
The comment she made highlights her raging ignorance on the subject matter and it also highlights the insanity of the Left’s minds. Whenever a Hispanic person is involved in anything, the Left expects Trump to immediately deport that person even if he or she is here legally. That’s how little they think of Trump and that’s how they view things such as illegal immigration.
I won’t get too much into that topic since it has nothing to do with this case, but it does point to the Left’s mentality. They simply can’t help but to think about people’s race. They are just that shallow.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Prager University (otherwise known as PragerU) recently released a video where their host asks people off the street to play a little game they liked to call “Communist Manifesto or Democratic Party Platform?”
It’s honestly a pretty amusing video (down below) and the reaction from some of the people to find out some rather communist-sounding phrases didn’t come from the writers of the Communist Manifesto: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, but rather came as part of the Democratic Party Platform was funny as well.
These were all the quotes:
“We will push for a societal transformation.”
“We have established new classes, new conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggles that replace the old ones.”
“The racial, wealth, and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people.”
“Disparities in wealth cannot be solved by the free market.”
“We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity."
“The system is not working. We have rigged the economy.”
I challenge you to get all of these right.
And that was the precise challenge for the people Ami Horowitz of PragerU interviewed.
With the first quote: “We will push for a societal transformation”, most people answered: “Communist Manifesto”. Which was wrong. That was a 2016 Democratic Party Platform quote. One of them was so shocked she even said: “What? That sounds majorly communist!”
With the second quote: “We have established new classes, new conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggles that replace the old ones”, the video only showed two people answering. One of them got it right and the other wrong. The quote comes from the Communist Manifesto. Playing along, I figured I was right, considering the language used here. The Democrats would never dream of using words such as “oppression” and “struggle” as things they have anything to do with. Saying “We have established new… conditions of oppressions, new forms of struggles that replace the old ones” would not make the Democrat Party look good at all.
Of course, those are things they want to do, but they’d never win any elections by directly saying these things (or at least, not yet). They tend to hide the new conditions of oppressions and forms of struggles. For example, they’ve replaced plantations with ghettos to put down and take advantage of the African American people.
With the third quote: “The racial, wealth, and income gaps are the result of policies that discriminate against people”, most got right. It was from the Democratic Party Platform. Again, it’s all about language. These “gaps” are things only Democrats actively talk about. The communists didn’t “care” about income gaps. Politicians and their friends tended to be the only ones with wealth. Everyone else was equally poor. That’s communism. And that’s what Democrats want.
With the fourth quote: “Disparities in wealth cannot be solved by the free market”, everyone got it wrong. This one’s a bit tricky, at least to people that don’t get involved in politics too often. And here, the language used doesn’t help you out too much. This is a Democratic Party Platform quote. It doesn’t surprise me that everyone got it wrong, since both the communists and Democrats despise the free market system.
One of the people even said this upon hearing the correct answer: “Really? That sounded just like the Communist Manifesto. That’s crazy.”
With the fifth quote: “We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political and social inequity”, again, two people were shown answering and one of them got it right, mostly because he figured out how the game is going: if it sounds communist, it’s probably Democrat.
Again, the language used here helps us. The Democrats are the only ones who pretend to care about racial inequity and all the other things.
With the final quote: “The system is not working. We have rigged the economy”, once again two people answered and only one got right. Considering things, even language, this one is a bit more tricky than the others. But I hope you’re not surprised to find out that this is also Democratic Party Platform.
I can understand if people got this one wrong. The language sounds exactly like it’s coming out of the Communist Manifesto. Personally, as I was playing along the first time, even I thought it was the Communist Manifesto. This sounds exactly like something a communist would say. And I mean a full-blown and outspoken communist, sort of like Bernie Sanders.
But this game made me think about creating my own little game. I’ll title it: “Who Said It? Leftist or Republican?”
Let’s begin, shall we?
“… the need to better secure the border and punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants.”
That sounds exactly like something Trump would say or really any other (conservative) Republican. It’s a message prioritizing the rule of law. A message that boldly proclaims that illegals shouldn’t be here and those who are here, as well as those who employ them, should be punished.
It’s also a message delivered by a man who would eventually become President of the United States of America.
And that man’s name… is Barack Hussein Obama.
Yep, a Democrat said this. But not just any Democrat. Their most popular and beloved member said this.
The next couple of quotes are roughly about the same subject:
“I’m just as opposed to Booker T. Washington with all his Anglo-Saxon reinforcements as I am to the coconut-headed, chocolate-colored typical little coon Andy Dotson who blacks my shoes every morning.”
“Now that Roosevelt has eaten with that n****r in Washington, we shall have to kill a thousand n****rs to get them back to their place.”
The Left would want you to believe that these were Republicans saying this. As it turns out, the first quote comes from Democrat Senator James Vardaman responding to Teddy Roosevelt’s meeting with Booker T. Washington.
The second was Democrat Senator Benjamin Tillman.
Let’s move on to the next one. This one will be a bit more of a freebie, but I believe it’s worth quoting.
“We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation… and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Since this is very clearly a Leftist, let’s rework the premise of the game. “Which Leftist Said It?”
With this new game system, it becomes a little bit harder to get this one right. It sounds just like something Crazy Bernie would say. Certainly how any Democrat feels.
This is a very socialist message. A message of destroying the free market capitalist system in the country by any means necessary. A message of utter destruction of everything that gives people the actual opportunity to become wealthy on their own merit.
I’ll give you a hint: it’s not a quote from this century. Ready to hear the answer?
Adolph Hitler, in a 1927 speech.
If there ever was any debate over whether Hitler was a socialist or not, this should utterly destroy any arguments that he wasn’t.
We’ll end this little game with two quotes from the same person.
“I don’t mind telling you in confidence that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” “There seems no question he is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose in restoring Italy.”
As you can probably guess, this quote is talking about Mussolini. This quote highlights this person’s admiration for the Fascist dictator and shows interest in what he has accomplished in oppressing the Italian people.
Who said it? Someone very important in the United States and someone the Democrats reverend as a great Democrat of his time: FDR. This comes from a letter to a Mussolini admirer.
We continue the game, but returning to the previous format.
“Donald Trump represents a threat both to the party and to the country. I believe he makes the world far more dangerous, I believe he puts America’s economy in jeopardy. And his temperament is totally unsuited for the presidency.”
Reading this, you can picture people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and many Leftists saying this. After all, they’ve all said, at one time or another, that he’s unsuited for the presidency. But the hint comes from the very beginning of the quote.
Democrats don’t care about what happens to the GOP. If they could, they’d destroy it entirely. So this is obviously coming from a Republican. Which one? The one that is now running for a Senate seat in Utah: Loser Mitt Romney.
We’ll end this little game here, since I don’t want to run this article too long. I’ll finish by saying that it was very amusing to see all of the reactions from the people discovering just how closely tied the Democrats are to communist ideals. Hopefully at least one of them recognizes this fact and decides never to vote for another Democrat again.
1 Corinthians 3:18
“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.”
I’ve said this many times before, but this is a conversation that always goes around in circles anyway: gun control doesn’t work. And even a high school student from the very school that was the target of Nikolas Cruz believes gun control doesn’t work.
MSNBC host Brian Williams (yes, the same one that can’t tell the truth to save his life) interviewed a couple of the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Williams asked one of them about the shooting suspect, with him replying that he had a couple of classes with Nikolas but never really associated with him until he was paired with him on a school project. Brandon, the student being interviewed, said that Nikolas told Brandon about how he had gotten expelled from “two different private schools, he was held back twice, he had aspirations to join the military and he enjoyed hunting.”
Williams then mentioned how Cruz left evidence behind on his social media pointing to the eventual shooting and he was the kind of person you’d usually leave alone.
Brandon replied how he “always thought that he was unusual and strange; always sat alone, twiddling his thumbs; keeping to himself, laugh at himself.”
From Brandon’s account, we can see some signs of mental instability. And when Williams asked Brandon how he felt when he had learned that it was Cruz who committed this heinous crime, Brandon said that he “wasn’t surprised, but it was kind of unfortunate to hear.”
Then, Williams gets to the political side of the issue. He asks Brandon that if he were “a lawmaker in a decision-making position, how would you stop… the kind of thing that happened today? A kid who had been thrown out, comes back with a weapon and takes out whatever grievance he’s been walking around with in his head?”
In other words, he asked Brandon whether he would push for gun control or not. This is what Brandon replies with: “Gun-wise, I don’t think there’s any way to prevent it. If you outlaw guns, it just creates a higher demand for it. I think it has to do with mental health. If he’s been expelled three different times in three different schools, I think he should be helped out.”
How is it that a high school student from a school that was the target of a mass shooting is more cognizant of the ineffectiveness of gun control than politicians and the Left?
While the Left makes the same expected push for gun control, brings up tons of made up statistics, such as “there have been 18 school shootings in 2018,” which even the Washington Post debunks as “flat wrong”, Brandon here understands that the issue is not with guns. And while I wrote an article saying that the issue is with the hearts of people, it’s also important to note that the issue also lies in the minds of people.
Brandon details a kid with some obvious signs of mental instability. And the fact that Cruz had been kicked out of multiple schools in a short amount of time indicates the fact that Cruz needed help and urgently.
He understands that, had Cruz gotten some help, the likelihood of him shooting up the school and mass murdering 17 of his former classmates would’ve severely decreased. And if he was determined enough to shoot up the school, I think he would’ve been determined enough to procure a weapon no matter what the law says.
Which is why I roll my eyes every time some idiot Leftist or supposed media “conservative” says we should repeal the second amendment. Let me tell you, even if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed and all registered guns were confiscated in America, shootings would still happen and in even higher rates.
And say, for example, that the government confiscated ALL guns, both registered and unregistered, the problem wouldn’t be solved, only delayed. And how is delaying these things any better? Mexican cartels would still bring guns into America, at even higher rates under this hypothesis. As Brandon said, outlawing guns only creates a higher demand for it. So there would be more demand for guns in the country and no repeal and confiscation would even come close to solving this problem.
The Left never thinks things through and is never realistic. Think of it this way. Weed is illegal in most states. In those states, police sometimes find any amount of weed on someone. Despite the fact that weed is illegal, these people still have some, however small the amount may be. They still have it despite the fact that weed can not be legally sold and possessed there (at least without a medicinal marijuana license).
Now, replace the word “weed” in that example with the word “gun”. Do you see where the problem is? Even with a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment and total confiscation of all guns in the U.S., people will still find a way to procure one or more.
And that’s the major reason why gun control doesn’t work. Gun control only applies to those who follow the law and the ones who follow the law tend not to be the ones shooting up schools, churches, theaters and such.
So focusing on gun control, the NRA and these things only detracts from the real issue at hand. The NRA is the only organization in the world that gets blamed for things that their members didn’t do. The NRA is painted as child-killers by the same people that support abortion. Painted as controlling bureaucrats with money despite the fact that Planned Parenthood donates far more money to politicians than the NRA does.
The NRA is not the culprit here. The AR-15 used in this shooting was not the culprit here. The manufacturers who made the gun are not the culprits here. The culprit here is Nikolas Cruz, mainly, but also the school system’s failure to help out a child who clearly needed help and the FBI’s failure to collect the clear evidence left behind by Cruz on social media and instead focusing on destroying a duly-elected President.
What we need is not a change in our gun laws (if anything, guns should be made more readily available). What we need is a change in culture. A change in people’s hearts. A change in people’s minds. I won’t go too much into detail here since I’ve already written an article on how we can prevent most mass shootings, but that’s where the answer to these tragedies lie.
Laws don’t change people’s hearts and minds. Christ does.
“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.”
If you know me, you know that whenever a shooting similar to the most recent one at a Florida high school, I’m essentially forced to push back against the typical, brain-dead response from the Left: blaming the guns.
I don’t want to ever be in that situation. I don’t want to hear of another mass shooting. I don’t want to have to defend our 2nd amendment rights every time one happens because guns aren’t the problem here.
The Left is more than ok with shootings (a bold claim, I know, but hear me out) because they will always lead to the same argument: gun control. It’s the one thing they most look forward to out of these situations. And despite the fact that once more information comes in and we discover that no measure of gun control would’ve prevented this shooting or any other shooting, the Left doesn’t care. They continue to push for more gun control, ignoring all the facts as the Left typically does with any subject.
But if you want to prevent most mass shootings (maybe not all of them, but at least most), then pushing for gun control is not the way to go. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens. Criminals tend not to give two hoots about laws, hence why they’re called criminals.
Schools are gun-free zones, and yet, they’re still attacked. That should be evidence enough for the Left to see that gun control doesn’t work. Guns aren’t allowed in schools but people still shoot up schools. No evil bastard of a criminal is ever going to read the “no guns allowed” sign and think “Well, the sign said guns aren’t allowed, so I’ll just turn back and head home, I guess.” Branding any place a “gun-free zone” is the equivalent of painting a massive target for anyone without a heart to attack.
Not to mention that it makes no logical sense to blame an inanimate object for this sort of tragedy. When a drunk driver hits someone and kills them, who goes to jail? The car? The beer? And who gets the blame for the incident? The car manufacturer? The bar that sold the guy a beer? The brewery that makes the beer?
No, the driver gets the blame. Not the car. Not the beer. The idiot behind the wheel. So then, I ask, why blame guns in these cases? Why blame the NRA? Why blame gun manufacturers? If you put a can of beer in a car with no one in it, chances are that you’re not going to get killed in that instance. If you put a gun, loaded or unloaded, in front of you on a table, chances are that it’s not going to come to life and shoot you.
For the same reason that a car is not going to come to life and run you over. For the same reason a fork isn’t going to come to life and force-feed you until you get fat.
These are all tools. What matters is how we use them.
And, considering the previous example of the car and the beer, that should also be a good indicator as to why gun control wouldn’t work. Drunk driving is illegal in every state, but it still happens. Now, I’m not saying that we should legalize drunk driving at all. That would be a very stupid idea. But the point I’m trying to make is that, despite the fact that we have laws against drunk driving, it still happens.
Despite the fact that weed is illegal in most states, people still possess it, have it, smoke it or deal it. Despite the fact that crack is illegal in every state, people can still get it, smoke it, and deal it.
Law abiding citizens (at least the smart ones) aren’t going to drink and drive. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to possess, smoke or deal weed (at least the ones in states that are still smart and weed is still illegal). Law abiding citizens aren’t going to procure crack, smoke it or deal it.
And as it is, it’s illegal to kill people. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to kill people. Law abiding citizens aren’t going to shoot up schools or concerts. Making guns illegal only makes law abiding citizens less safe.
Gun control only affects law abiding citizens, not criminals. If an evil person wants to get a gun, they will get one legally or illegally if the will is strong enough. We know that the evil bastard that shot up the Florida school got his gun (AR-15) legally and even had smoke grenades (which are also legal). But who’s to say that the guy wouldn’t have gotten his armament illegally if he was that determined to shoot up the school?
We also know that a user by the name of “Nikolas Cruz” (same name as the shooter) left a comment in a YouTube video that said: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” I don’t know why he wrote that, but the comment was reported to the FBI, who didn’t follow up on it (likely due to their witch hunt on Trump). Clearly, he was serious about the threat, so who’s to say any measure of gun control would’ve ultimately prevented the shooting?
Gun control wouldn’t have prevented any other shooting in the past and it wouldn’t prevent any in the future.
But given the title of the article, I know how to prevent most mass shootings: a Christian revival in the country.
I will wager you all of my money that not a single Christian, has ever shot up a school, theater, concert or any place with the intent to cause harm and death on people. All of the shootings that have ever happened anywhere in the world came from people who either didn’t believe in God or were Muslims.
Those are the only two culprits in any and all shootings. And what do they have in common? Neither is taught about the value of life.
According to data accumulated from the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, just under 1 million abortions take place each year, with more than 55 million abortions having been performed since Roe v. Wade. Let me tell you, it’s not Christians killing these children.
So compare that to a report by CNN that “Guns kill nearly 1300 US children each year” (actual title), and tell me which sounds worse? Of course, I can’t ignore the phrasing by this CNN article, blaming the gun as always. And while I wish no child would ever die at the hands of an evil person with a gun, I also wish no child would ever be killed inside the safest place they should feel: their mother’s womb.
And just who are the people who push for the right to kill your own child? The same people that shed fake tears after every shooting. That’s precisely why I don’t believe anything they say for one second. They push for “protecting the children from guns” all-the-while pushing for women to have the right to kill their own children.
No Christian would ever have or perform an abortion. No Christian would ever shoot people. That’s why I’m saying that Christ is the answer for mass shootings. Christians know the value of life and know not to take one unless their own life is threatened.
The solution to mass shootings doesn’t lie in gun control legislation or debate. It lies in the hearts of the people. Only someone truly evil would do what Nikolas Cruz did. What the Vegas shooter did. What the Orlando nightclub shooter did. What Hitler did. What Stalin did. What Kim Jong-un does.
None of them had Christ in their hearts. And Christ is exactly what it takes to prevent mass shootings. Now, I understand that not everyone will come to Christ in this world, clearly. There will be people who will always be evil and never change. Those are the ones who will be likely to commit mass shootings. Which is precisely why good guys should be able to have guns. Gun control won't stop bad guys from getting guns, it will stop good guys from getting guns and protecting themselves and their loved ones.
Had Christ been in the hearts of any of the aforementioned people, they wouldn’t have done the horrible things they did. Again, the reason is because Christians understand the value of life. And with the Left constantly pushing for the right to end someone’s life in the womb, the Left utterly destroys the value of life. Or rather, they keep people from understanding the value of life.
People will put animals’ lives ahead of people’s lives, even ahead of their own. They will put trees’ lives ahead of people’s lives, even ahead of their own. Those people don’t understand the value of human life and its priority over the life of an animal or a tree.
Unless more people come to understand the value of life, mass shootings will only continue happening. And unless people start to understand what the Left is doing in diminishing the value of life, mass shootings will continue to happen, perhaps at even worse rates.
That’s why I say we need a Christian revival. If almost all people came to Christ and understood the value of life, FAR less shootings would occur, FAR less abortions would occur (both because of the understanding of the value of life and because people would understand the sanctity of marriage and sex within marriage) and the world would honestly be a far better place.
Alas, that’s not something that I expect will happen. I wish I could be optimistic over that, but I understand that not everyone in the world will become Christian, particularly since the Bible says as much. All I can do is hopefully get people to understand the value of life through articles like these and teach my future children the same Christian values I have.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
We’ve gotten to the point where Leftists are literally condemning Trump for deciding to give food to poor people.
President Trump, in his budget proposal this past week, came up with a neat little idea: let’s give people food instead of food stamps. The reason for this is that the food stamp system is often times abused (there have been reports of scams and fraud) and people will usually use it to buy junk food instead of healthy food.
And since this is a plan proposed by Trump, the Left decides it’s a terrible idea and it shouldn’t be implemented.
According to the Daily Wire, the Huffington Post viewed the idea this way: “Facing a trillion-dollar deficit because of his just-passed tax cuts, President Donald Trump has an idea for how to get some of that money back: making poor people eat beans and rice.”
You gotta love the way these lunatics phrase things. First of all, the deficit isn’t due to the tax cuts. According to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Monthly Treasury Statement, the federal government made more in taxes in the first four months of the fiscal year than any other year, it broke the January record for tax collection and is at a $49 billion surplus, having collected $361 billion and spending approximately $312 billion.
So the tax cuts are helping the government MAKE MORE MONEY! Of course, that’s a concept that no liberal understands, so I can excuse this HuffPost writer’s ignorance.
But the financial aspects of this proposal are not the only thing I want to focus on. The HuffPost writer also made it seem that the government is trying to be greedy and is literally forcing poor people to eat beans and rice.
When I first read that, the image I received was that of a typical greedy fat-cat force-feeding beans and rice to a poor person. I can only imagine that’s the exact picture other people had in their minds. But, as usual, reality is far different from what the Left makes it seem.
Second, it’s not just “beans and rice”. The USDA would have a package that contains “shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruits and vegetables,” according to the budget deal.
This writer makes it seem as though Trump is this close to literally feeding dirt and mud to poor people.
But that’s not the most ridiculous statement coming from the Left on this issue, if you can believe it.
NPR also talked about it and here’s that they said: “The USDA believes that state governments will be able to deliver this food at much less cost than SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients currently pay for food at retail stores – thus reducing the overall cost of the SNAP program by $129 billion over the next 10 years. This and other changes in the SNAP program, according to the Trump administration, will reduce the SNAP budget by $213 billion over those years – cutting the program by almost 30 percent.”
Wait, here comes the funny part: “Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, a hunger advocacy group that also helps clients access food-assistance services, said the administration’s plan left him baffled. ‘They have managed to propose nearly the impossible, taking over $200 billion worth of food from low-income Americans while increasing bureaucracy and reducing choices,’ Berg says. He says SNAP is efficient because it is a ‘free market model’ that lets recipients shop at stores for their benefits. The Trump administration’s proposal, he said, ‘is a far more intrusive, Big Government answer. They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?’”
SO NOW THEY’RE CLAIMING IT INCREASES THE SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT?! The Trump Derangement Syndrome might be under full effect for these people. Since when does the Left care at all about a free market system? THEY HATE FREE MARKETS! They are the ones constantly increasing the size of the government!
In 2009, when Obama took office, there were 33.5 million people on food stamps. In October of 2016, that number reached 44.2 million – a 10.7 million people increase. The cost of the programs to taxpayers increased from $50.3 billion to $66.6 billion. Obama did what Leftists tend to do: make people poor and dependent on the government.
To put more people on food stamps would be to increase the government. To give people under that program actually healthy food is not. And considering this plan would CUT funding for the program, it’s actually DECREASING the size of the government.
And since Trump took office, nearly 1.5 million people have gotten off of food stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. A 3.5% drop.
And it’s not just the actual program that you have to consider when discussing this plan. Unemployment rates are also something to consider. If more people are working, less people will require government assistance. Part of the reason for the aforementioned number is that the unemployment rate has truly been dropping (unlike during Obama’s tenure when it only dropped because more people stopped looking for jobs, even though they should still have counted as unemployed).
When the economy is truly booming, people tend to notice. And when the economy is truly booming, less people feel the need to request help from the government. Which is precisely why Democrats LOATHE a truly booming economy.
Democrats need a consistently poor base. Since their previous American base is now doing better thanks to Trump’s booming economy, they are now largely seeking to import a base.
They need people to be poor for them to be successful. And that’s not happening in Trump’s economy. Heck, if approval numbers are anything to go by (which they usually aren’t, but it’s important to make note of this), then more and more people are approving of Trump’s job than they did before. According to a Politico poll, 47% of voters approve of his job performance, while 47% disapprove.
That’s a number no one in the media expected to see and a number no one in the media wants to see/report. I don’t tend to give too much credibility to polls in general, but it’s noteworthy to see polls that show these kinds of numbers. Since the Left lives and dies by the polls, these numbers can only infuriate them.
More and more people are beginning to approve of Trump’s performance as POTUS, so Democrats have to go with people that think the same things they do. People who hate Trump and hate America and believe they’re entitled to abuse our economic system.
But returning to the proposition by Trump, I’m honestly very bemused that the Left is opposed to this and even more bemused with their arguments against it.
You know what a good free market system would be for these poor people? Getting a job, which, in Trump’s economy, it’s becoming easier to do.
“In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He Himself said, ‘it is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
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...