Calling on the spirit of German and Soviet socialists of days gone by, supporters of Bernie Sanders set out to harass and intimidate Democrat congressional candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan by trying to trap her in her car, making demands that she debate her far-left, socialist primary opponent Stefanie Smith.
 
A video of the incident captured the moment, with one Bernie Bro shouting “Will you support Medicare for All?” and later “block her in” as well as “get by her window.”
 
Of course, for sane people, this is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and harass a candidate these people don’t like, but unsurprisingly, Stefanie Smith, the aforementioned socialist primary candidate, approved of this brown-shirt style intimidation attempt by the Bernie Bros.
 
“It was a non-violent protest. [I]f Betsy can’t handle a few people demanding a conversation about the life or death issues facing many of [us] in this district, she should quit now because she will not be able to handle Davis and Trump.”
 
In a Facebook video, Smith expressed her appreciation for the intimidation of Londrigan: “I can’t tell you how much it meant to me when I watched the video of what happened. Apparently, people are expecting me to make a statement. They’re absolutely the most manipulative, childish, privileged, terrible people I’ve met in my life (unsure who she is referring to here, but I doubt it’s her little brown-shirt comrades),” she added that “campaigning has been a nightmare of alienation, hostility, humiliation, gaslighting, and so much abuse.”
 
You mean like the kind of abuse your opponent got from your little commie gremlins? I don’t even find it surprising in the least bit that she supports this. She herself is a socialist and socialists love this kind of behavior from their minions. They embrace and adore violence, targeted political harassment and intimidation against political opponents. Of course, she tries to downplay it, saying it was just as “non-violent protest” when it was clearly so much more than that.
 
Not that this is even remotely a first for the Bernie Bros. Need I remind you of the Bernie Sanders supporter who specifically tried to hunt down and murder Republicans during a Congressional baseball game? Or when a Bernie Bro tried to destroy and blow up ICE vehicles? Even fairly recently, at a Bernie rally, two Bernie Bros got into a scuffle because a black Bernie Bro was wearing a shirt that said “Black Guns Matter”, which a white Bernie Bro, ironically, found to be racist, resulting in the two shoving and attacking each other briefly.
 
Violence, hatred, insanity, these are a few of the many words that depict these terrible, horrible people. Obviously, not every person that supports Bernie engages in this sort of activity, but his supporters are pretty much the only people that do this on a regular basis. And he doesn’t even mind one bit. He’s not going to outright praise and encourage people to do this but people like Maxine Waters will encourage this behavior and excuse it when it happens because she is just as terrible a human being as the rest of them are.
 
Bear in mind that we are talking about a DEMOCRAT candidate being harassed here. I don’t know much about Betsy Londrigan apart from what I can tell from reading her campaign page. It says that Londrigan is running “because everything is at stake – access to quality and affordable healthcare, an economy that prioritizes the middle class, and a Congress that isn’t controlled by special interests.” Running as a Democrat, it’s rather clear that she does not believe the economy is good for middle-class Americans (even though it is) and believes in passing legislation to “make healthcare affordable” as though we didn’t have in place a terrible system called the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, that was supposed to do that but clearly has failed.
 
She is your typical Leftist running in this day and age, which is why I find it so interesting that Bernie Bros would choose to target her and harass her like this. She even said that she’d be willing to support Smith if she won the candidacy, even though Smith did not reciprocate. She is not an outright enemy to the Commie Brigade, she just isn’t these people’s favored candidate. And yet, they choose to harass her like this. Says plenty about the character of these people, who claim to be in the moral right despite all the evidence against that.
 
It also goes to show they are willing to destroy anyone if it means getting their way. If a Democrat who simply is in the way of their favored candidate is bound to receive this kind of harassment, they will lust for the blood of someone who is actually a political enemy.
 
A spokeswoman for the incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), the man Smith and Londrigan are running against, denounced the protest against the Democrat candidate: “In 2017, a Bernie supporter shot at Congressman Davis and other Republicans practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game. Since then, Congressman Davis has spoken out against this kind of violence and the harassment others have experienced, saying it shouldn’t happen to anyone. He wishes more people would speak out against this kind of harassment from Bernie supporters.”
 
No one who is a Bernie supporter will speak out against this because this serves in the interests of Che Sanders. These people, I will repeat, are communists. Communists don’t care for other people. If someone is in their way, they are to be eliminated in whatever manner possible. Joseph Stalin’s own son was captured by the Nazis when they invaded the USSR (Stalin’s son was a soldier for the Red Army) and he refused to make an exchange with them to get him back. He did not like his son at all, thought of him as nothing but a failure, even ridiculing him when he attempted suicide by remarking that he couldn’t even kill himself properly, and believed his son surrendered himself to the enemy rather than having been captured, considering him an enemy of the state.
 
Stalin did not see any value in his own son and found more value in the prisoners the Soviets had captured, namely a high-ranking Nazi officer and even Hitler’s nephew, than in his own son. This is what communists do. Anyone who is not worth something to their leaders is expendable, utterly worthless, and their life holds no meaning or value. They do not care for the lives of others, not believing that even their own lives have value unless they serve their human masters or the State (but I repeat myself).
 
Again, it’s not surprising that these commies would be willing to harass someone who is not even ideologically different from them. She is just in the way of their communist candidate. That’s all it takes for her life to be worth nothing. For all the cries about “free speech hurts my feelings”, they sure don’t mind possibly traumatizing someone at best if it means getting their way. And, like Smith, they will call it a “non-violent protest”.
 
Right, because such protests include harassing someone, trapping them in their car and making them fear for their lives and general well-being. Apparently, a “non-violent protest” can include targeted harassment and intimidation, so long as there isn’t physical damage to person or property.
 
These people are simultaneously unbelievable and perfectly predictable. I don’t know how they manage to do that.
 
Romans 2:9-11
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”

Before getting to the major points of this article, I would like to say that the title, I would hope, comes across as sarcastic, because some people may not quite get it in this day and age. I am not even a little bit surprised that The Boston Globe, long the biggest pushers for the hoax that Elizabeth Warren was Native American, ended up endorsing Elizabeth Warren. No one, I believe, should be surprised by this. But there is reason for me to talk about this, despite how obvious a result this was.
 
It’s not simply the actual endorsement that I want to cover, but the reasons The Boston Globe gives for endorsing her.
 
The Boston Globe begins by saying that they believe any of the Democrat candidates would be a better alternative to Donald Trump (yes, they even include Bloomberg, the closet communist, and Bernie Sanders, the out-of-the-closet communist), and gives brief “reasons” as to why. With Mayor Pete, they say he is “whip-smart and brings a war-zone veteran’s credibility to military matters.” Mayor Pete was an intel analyst targeting al-Qaeda’s finances. Granted, he was in some of the more dangerous areas to look for this intel, according to military documents acquired by The Hill (that are heavily redacted), but he was not engaged in combat while in the military (this isn’t meant to diminish the work that he did in serving this country, but it is meant to point out that he does not have “war-zone veteran” credibility).
 
They also say of Mayor Pete “his calmness under pressure creates a welcome contrast to a president who tweets insults at world leaders.” The world leaders we are talking about here are Kim Jong-un and the Ayatollah Khamenei, for the most part, who are both great enemies of the U.S., with Little Kim having essentially been tamed after finding out Trump is not the softy that Obama was and with the Ayatollah Khamenei finding out the same after his second-in-command was blown into pieces. He criticizes leaders from “allied” countries when they act against the interests of the United States because he wishes to advance the U.S., not help political enemies.
 
Of Joe Biden, they comment on his legislative “achievements”, such as the “Violence Against Women Act”, which criminalized violence against women. Wait, you’re telling me it was already illegal to be violent towards women and the bill practically achieved nothing? Huh. Of Bloomberg, they comment on his drive to enact gun control policies and “combat” climate change. Of Klobuchar, they praise her ability to “broker bipartisan deals” in a polarized Congress. And Bernie, they just like the fact that he “fights” inequality. Never mind the fact that he and I have an inequality in the number of houses we each own. Never mind that he has millions of dollars while I have substantially less.
 
But regardless of their praise of the other candidates (which really just shows they’re willing to sidle up to whomever wins the nomination), they, of course, say they believe Warren is best suited to take on and beat Trump, which is utterly laughable.
 
They say she wants to “defend the principles of democracy” despite the fact we are a Republic and, as such, we are not ruled by a mob that wishes to decide what happens in other states without the consent of people living in those states. She will “bring fairness to an economy that is excluding too many Americans”, despite the fact that we are experiencing record-low unemployment rates across the board and wages are going up, particularly for low-wage Americans, who are seeing wage growth at far higher rates than middle- and high-wage Americans. She would “fight the corruption and corporate influence that distort our politics”, despite the fact that she takes money from Planned Parenthood and other Leftist lobby groups.
 
Later on, The Boston Globe writes: “Fearless and brilliant on her feet, Warren has the greatest potential among the candidates to lay bare Trump’s weaknesses on a debate stage. The Senator gets the most mileage when she brings her fight not to caricatures of billionaires in wine caves but to the real people in the room with her – whether businessmen or bureaucrats – who have failed to fulfill the responsibilities of public service or whose plans for the country are half-baked or ill-conceived.” She literally stole her Medicare-for-All plan from Bernie and virtually everything else from him as well. If his plans are half-baked or ill-conceived, so are hers.
 
Warren also makes a priority to go after predatory lenders, despite the fact that government intrusion into the college system have created such predatory lenders in the first place. With college getting more and more expensive, high school graduates’ only options are to either go into massive amounts of debt or not go to college at all, if they cannot receive a scholarship (and scholarships only go so far). Warren would just put more government into a system that has far too much in it already, thus making things even worse.
 
The funny thing is that, at one point, the Boston Globe criticizes Sanders for adhering to his ideology and agenda despite facts and often evades precise figures. WARREN DOES THE EXACT SAME THING BECAUSE SHE OFTEN COPIES SANDERS! Despite how utterly ineffective, disastrous and not to mention unaffordable Medicare-for-All is, she still wishes to pursue it. She still wants a Green New Deal. It doesn’t matter if she wants to “tweak” them a little to make them a bit more “affordable”, because there is no making it affordable! We can hardly afford the government garbage we have today, given our ever-rising national debt.
 
And she wants to increase that debt exponentially?! Not to mention this is not exclusive to Warren either.
 
They say that she would tackle the NRA and fossil fuel industries for “thwarting legislative efforts” regarding gun control and climate change, the latter of which they falsely claim is a major priority for Americans. I’ve recently written an article talking about precisely this; about how a poll from Pew Research Center (so not exactly a right-wing surveyor) found “dealing with climate change” to be near the bottom in a list of priorities for Americans.
 
Elizabeth Warren would be no better a president than Sanders or any other Democrat, because she would be just as disastrous for this country as the rest of them. But as I stated previously, I’m not surprised that The Boston Globe would endorse her. For years, they had been pushing the hoax that Warren was Native American, even publishing her DNA results and claiming that she was Native American when the results showed she was less Native American than your average white person AT BEST, being 1/32nd Native American, and being FAR less Native than your average white person at 1/1024th Native American.
 
And let’s not forget that the DNA analysis was awfully flawed, extrapolating Native American DNA from LATIN AMERICANS as opposed to actual Native Americans, so the results could be even worse.
 
Not surprising in the least that a fake news publication would endorse their favorite fake Indian. And the reasons as to why are laughable at best.
 
Proverbs 29:12
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”

As a Christian, I want to always share the good news - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - so I try to speak about the goodness of God every time I get a chance. Because no matter what mistakes we made in our lives, we know that Christ paid for the sins of those who trust Him. So I tend to try to share the good news with anyone – any sinner – who’s willing to listen.

But also as a Christian I have high expectations of those who speak from a pulpit – you don’t have to be perfect, but you need to understand Scripture. And you need to be passionate about Jesus and about people – showing the same love and compassion towards sinners that Jesus showed. So what I definitely don’t want to see is a “Church” in which they allow in their pulpit anyone who clearly has no understanding of the Word of God – someone like Mayor Pete who hates babies and is in favor of killing them if their moms don’t want them.

This past Sunday, Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg spoke at the First Baptist Church in James Island, South Carolina, and decided to quote the Bible to get his political message across. The problem is, while using the Bible, he clearly misunderstood the very verse he used. I’ll explain that in just a moment, but let me share with you what he actually said:

“My point in standing before you is not to claim that I understand more than I do, but rather to promise – as the Scripture says – not to lean on my own understanding too much, but to do a lot of listening along the way”. And he added “Not to say that I get it, but to promise to always surround myself with people who will let me know when I don't.”

Now, all of this sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Mayor Pete has this ability to sound so reasonable all the time. After all, there’s nothing wrong with surrounding yourself with people who will let you know what you don’t know. That makes perfect sense. Except he’s citing a Bible verse to appeal to Christians as if the Bible was the one directing Buttigieg to listen to other people when he doesn’t know - and this is where he's wrong. The problem is that that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible actually warns us about false prophets, for example, and to be careful about who we surround ourselves with. We obviously don’t want to listen to murderers, do we? Or sexual predators.  What good thing could we possibly learn from them?

What Mayor Pete said comes from Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding”.

If Buttigieg knew anything about the Bible he’d know that a) it’s the inerrant Word of God and b) it must be interpreted by the Bible itself. As many Theologians would point out, “you have to interpret the Bible by the Bible”. This means you don’t just read one verse and interpret it any way you want, which is what Buttigieg mostly does, but rather you need to continue the reading of Scriptures and understand that particular verse by other verses in the Bible such that you will be consistent and correct in your interpretation.

But in this particular case, the verse is so clear that it doesn’t require reading any additional Bible verse to understand its meaning.

You see, what God asks from us in that verse is that a) we trust Him and b) we do not lean on our own understanding. That even when we see bad things happening, we need to trust God's plan.

As you can see, God is not telling us to go listen to other people to understand better, but rather to trust Him. That's the mandate. How do you trust Him? By listening to Him. And we listen to Him by reading all of the Bible and trust what He says – when you get to know God you know He’s the only one you can truly trust. He told Abraham that he would have a son and He would give his offspring a land “flowing with milk and honey”. And He did. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that. God said that if we walk in all His statutes, He would cause everything we touch to prosper. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that. God also said that He would never leave us nor forsake us. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that. Jesus healed everybody who asked Him to heal them – He never denied healing to anyone who came to Him. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that.

Mayor Pete is not supposed to go listen to other people, though that’s not a bad thing to do, but rather listen to GOD. Listening to God by the reading of Scriptures is the BEST way to lead your life. If Buttigieg did read the Bible regularly, he’d be a much better politician (and definitely would not be a Democrat). He would also do his best to stop sinning, knowing he isn't perfect and he will sin by his very nature, but will try to mitigate that sin. But because we know he’s leading a life that God calls “an abomination” (Bible verses against homosexuality include Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and many more), we can tell he doesn’t understand God at all. And how could he, when it's clear he doesn't understand this simple Bible verse?

For this reason, Mayor Pete should never be allowed to speak from a pulpit. No matter what the message is. He should attend service and try to understand who God is and who he is, as a sinner. And furthermore, he would know that there’s a way to Heaven that is inclusive but also unique and does not involve doing good deeds to try to convince God on judgement day that you weren’t all that bad while here on Earth. The Bible is clear, in Galatians 3:11 "the righteous shall live by Faith". We're saved by faith and by faith alone.

The sad part is that Mayor Pete and, likely, the leaders of the church where he “preached” do not understand the good news. You see, if it wasn’t for the bad news there wouldn’t be any good news. The bad news is that we’re all sinners. The good news is that God provided a way for us sinners to ensure eternal life. And that way is Jesus Christ exclusively. There is no other way. And when you understand the work of redemption that Jesus did 2,000 years ago – the fact that He was sinless, the fact that He was tortured by the Romans and crucified FOR OUR SINS, descended into Hell and was raised from the dead, then understanding what He did for you causes you to want to know everything about Jesus. Like when you follow an athlete or a singer, you want to know everything about them, right? Followers of Christ want to know everything about Him. And out of gratitude for what He did for us, we want to obey Him in all His commandments. But it all starts with understanding God.

Did Jesus die for everybody? No. He died only for those who trust Him, like John 3:16 says: “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life”. "Whoever believes in Him" excludes those who don't. God tells us that Jesus died for the sins of those who trust Him. Those who don’t trust Him are going to end up in Hell. There is one condition for salvation and that’s that you trust Jesus. When you do, you get ALL the blessings God promises. ALL of them.

I pray that Mayor Pete one day sees the light and truly gives his life to Jesus.
  
1 Kings 2:3
“keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn .“

Something I find strikingly odd on Twitter is the amount of people who support Bernie but claim that he is not a communist. The reason I find it so odd is because it’s not like the guy hides it and has even said to high school students in 1972: “I don’t mind people coming up and calling me a Communist.”
 
He most often describes himself as a socialist or democratic socialist (as though they are in any way different from communism) mostly because younger people actually believe socialism is a good thing (because they do not know what it actually is and think it relates to social media or being active in your community). But he does not mind people calling him a communist, which is good because he definitely is one.
 
Which is why I am not even a little bit surprised that, while on a “60 Minutes” interview with Anderson Cooper, he defended prior praiseful comments he had made about Fidel Castro.
 
According to 60 Minutes: “Back in the 1980s, Sanders had some positive things to say about the former Soviet Union and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Here he is explaining why the Cuban people didn’t rise up and help the U.S. overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro: “… he educated their kids, gave them healthcare, totally transformed the society, you know?”
 
“Bernie Sanders: ‘We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”
 
“Anderson Cooper: ‘A lot of p- dissidents imprisoned in – in Cuba.’”
 
“Bernie Sanders: ‘That’s right. And we condemn that. Unlike Donald Trump, let’s be clear, you want to – I do not think that Kim Jong Un is a good friend. I don’t trade love letters with a murdering dictator. Vladimir Putin, not a great friend of mine.’”
 
Obviously, there is a lot to unpack here. Let’s start from the beginning. “He educated their kids, gave them healthcare…” what a load of crap. First of all, that is not exactly true. Literacy was an issue in pre-Castro Cuba, but it’s not like virtually no one knew how to read or write. The literacy rate was around 60-76%. The rate went up following Castro’s rise to power (and we’ll get to that in a moment), but largely because of the Soviet Union helping it out in spreading communist propaganda. Nothing Castro implemented as national policy helped, as shown by the fact that, upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, any gains the Castro regime had made in terms of education or healthcare pretty much disappeared and went back to pre-Castro rates.
 
I was originally planning to make a joke socialist argument of “you’re starving but at least you can read” but this is not even applicable here because the latter was not helped by Castro at all, while the former was highly influenced by the communist dictator. And, again, it’s not like almost no one knew how to read or write. The rates were not great, particularly when compared to other nations, but they weren’t abysmally low.
 
The second thing I want to talk about is that little tid bit where Bernie says: “When Fidel Castro came into office…” That appears to be an attempt to legitimize the communist revolutionary, who, given the word I just used, fought a REVOLUTION to come into power. He did not get elected by the people of Cuba. He led a revolution and took power from another communist who did not call himself that.
 
Which is also another reason why the Cuban people didn’t help the U.S. against Castro: they had just fought a revolution to put him into power. Now, they were expected to fight another one to remove him? Not to mention the Castro regime spread anti-American propaganda, so they weren’t likely to help the U.S. government at any capacity.
 
The third thing I want to talk about here is his reflection of the criticism he was getting from Cooper by trying to say Trump also does the same. He does not. President Trump is not friends with Vladimir Putin outright. He has taken great steps to push back on Russian aggression in many former Soviet nations like Ukraine and recognizes the threat Russia poses if left unchecked. President Trump didn’t start playing friendly towards Kim Jong Un until he tamed the Rocket Man after pretending to be the crazier guy out of the two and threatening “fire and brimstone” on the fat dictator if he tried anything. Once the communist was tamed, the two began to be a bit friendlier (though not all that much), and Trump is attempting diplomatic peace with the guy, attempting to befriend one another, not because Trump agrees with the style of government (which I cannot say the same for Bernie, who loved the Soviet Union) but because he’s the POTUS and wants peace, not war.
 
Trump also never showed adoration for these dictators before he became president, whereas Bernie, on the other hand, clearly has shown such adoration for them and excuses his love and adoration not only for the dictators but the government systems they employ and at no point does he say that he is “wrong”. Even when trying to compare what he does to Trump, he does not even pretend that what he is doing or what he perceives Trump to be doing to be a bad thing. He is using that as a shield to ask “why is it okay for him to do it and not me?” The thing is that that’s not what Trump does at all.
 
The last thing I want to talk about is the argument some of his supporters often make: “what does it matter what Bernie said in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc.?”
 
It matters for two reasons: number one, it’s not like he was a teenager in those decades. I can somewhat forgive the ignorance of today’s young people in not understanding what socialism is. However, Bernie Sanders was 25 years old when he told high school students that he didn’t mind being called a communist. He was in his 30s/40s when he praised Castro and was 47 years old when he decided to honeymoon in MOSCOW, while also giving praise to the Soviet leadership and saying “things aren’t that bad” despite the fact that communism had killed tens of millions of people by that point.
 
He wasn’t some uneducated, ignorant young man who was simply unaware of what communism was. He understood it perfectly, saw it for what it was, and thought it was a good idea to apply that to the U.S. He was a grown adult who should’ve known better and didn’t.
 
Which brings me to my second point: HE STILL DEFENDS THIS BULLCRAP! At present time, the guy is 78 years old. At 78, he is running for President of the United States, seeking to implement the very policies that have KILLED tens of millions of people and destroyed entire nations and their economies. At the age of 78, he STILL thinks communism is a good idea and that it just hasn’t been properly implemented. He thinks the authoritarianism that stems from communism is a bug, not a feature. He still, to this date, does not realize that communism leads to the very same type of authoritarianism he accuses Trump of instilling. He either doesn’t realize it, which would make him an idiot, or realizes it and doesn’t care, which would make him evil.
 
Under communism, people don’t have rights. They cannot dissent from the official, state-sponsored and state-approved ideology. Any criticism of the leadership or the form of government will be eliminated via imprisonment or execution (or both). You are not allowed to make something out of yourself and be independent from the government. If you are rich in communist countries, it is because the government allows you to be. And that is the true 1% of the world.
 
Bernie wishes to be the ruler of his own communist nation, which is why he so often praises them and still does to this day. He doesn’t care that communism has been a horrifying failure both for the people and for the countries that apply them.
 
Bernie sanders praises communist dictators, the government they install and even excuses their horrifying authoritarianism by spreading lies about how “good” the healthcare and education of those countries are. This is something he still does to this day. Bernie Sanders is a communist and anyone claiming otherwise has zero idea of what they are talking about.
 
Proverbs 28:16
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”

Following the Las Vegas Democrat debate last week, Democrat candidate Mike Bloomberg’s online team put together a rather funny short video. The video depicts Michael Bloomberg on the debate stage saying: “I’m the only one here that I think that’s ever started a business. Is that fair?”
 
Obviously, the point of that was to highlight the fact that he was the only one that has any history in starting or even running a business, in response to the idea of having any of the socialists on that stage deciding what tax rates businesses should pay.
 
While originally, that little moment earned two seconds of silence because no one else on that stage had started a business, the video extended that time, with some scenes of the other candidates just standing there in complete silence and with some cricket noises added in to the background.
 
Obviously, it was meant to be humorous, which considering the utter lack of charisma and humor from the candidate himself, the campaign was in deep need of.
 
However, since the Left generally does not have a sense of humor, many in the mainstream media have sought to accuse Bloomberg and his team of producing a “doctored” video, saying he was intending to deceive people into believing there actually were 22 total seconds of silence from all the other candidates, until Bloomberg said “okay”, in the end.
 
While other MSM sources apart from The Washington Post discussed this in panels (because there definitely aren’t other things to attack Bloomberg over. Buying the primaries? Who wants to talk about that?), let’s focus primarily on what The Washington Post did which was to write an article on it, writing: “Late in the ninth Democratic debate, Bloomberg made this comment: ‘What I was going to say, maybe we want to talk about businesses. I’m the only one here that I think that’s ever started a business. Is that fair?’ Two seconds passed, and no one else on the stage answered. Bloomberg said, ‘Okay,’ and moved on.”
 
“The video takes that minor moment and stretches it to 22 seconds, with reaction shots that make the other candidates look troubled, embarrassed or confused. The video is silent except for cricket sounds… This is a case of what our guide (to “doctored” videos… yes, they really have one) labels as ‘Deceptive Editing,’ specifically a subcategory of ‘Omission’: ‘Editing out large portions from a video and presenting it as a complete narrative, despite missing key elements, is a technique used to skew reality.’”
 
Basically, they are completely taking seriously a video that was very clearly intended to poke fun at the other candidates and drive the point that Bloomberg was the only one that actually started a business, so in theory, he should have the most expertise on the topic of how the government ought to treat businesses (which is not necessarily true, because this guy is just as much of a commie as the other people on that stage, just hides it better than the rest). If anyone at all was actually convinced that, for a full 22 seconds, not a peep came out of any of the other candidates, that person needs to get himself an education.
 
Seriously, no one was deceived by the video because the video was not intended to deceive anyone. And yet, the WaPo says: “More than 2 million people had watched the video seven hours after it had been posted, so this is not a minor matter.” It isn’t a minor matter if you actually believe any one of those 2 million people could be or have been deceived by the video and would be more willing to support Bloomberg because of the “narrative” the video supposedly drives.
 
This is how little they think of the regular person, that they cannot discern reality from a “doctored” video. They actually believe “manipulated” videos like these can cause harm and willful disinformation. It’s not simply a matter that they do not have any sense of humor at all (though that’s also true); it’s a matter that they outright do not believe people have the intellectual capacity to tell that this video was edited and people need to be told that it was, and that the platform such videos appear on ought to do something about the video, otherwise it could cause people “harm”.
 
That word has been used so inappropriately and so regularly that it has lost its meaning. It used to be that something was harmful if it caused physical pain or injury, or maybe even psychological pain. But now, something can be “harmful” if it hurts your feelings and if something is simply untrue, even if it’s meant to be funny.
 
It’s the major reason why comedy is dying, because no one can stand a joke anymore if it isn’t directed at Trump or conservatives in general. Something can be deemed “harmful” for sensitive people if it simply is a matter of disagreement. It’s the excuse given by communists in social media for shutting down conservatives who dissent from the communist thought-group.
 
That Bloomberg video was, in itself, not harmful to anyone and anyone that claims it is harmful is either ultra-sensitive and would not be taken seriously by anyone who is remotely rational, or someone working for the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, willfully deceiving people (while ironically not being accused of causing any harm as a result of their disinformation).
 
The Washington Post ultimately gave the Bloomberg video “Four Pinocchios”, saying: “Political ads can be fun and entertaining, but they shouldn’t be misleading. Anyone who had not seen the debate could have been easily misled into thinking the other candidates stood there in stunned silence for nearly half a minute. We’re taking a tough line on manipulated campaign videos before viewers are flooded with so many fakes that they have trouble knowing what is true. The Bloomberg campaign should label this as a parody or else take the video down.”
 
A few things to say about this. First, that wasn’t a political ad. It was a political video because the topic was the debate, but it wasn’t an ad. Bloomberg has spent far more than anyone else in this race on campaign ads. You know a Bloomberg ad when you see it, and that video was clearly not a political ad.
 
Second, no, not anyone who did not watch the debate would’ve been easily misled into thinking the other candidates just stood there in silence because no one (I would hope) is quite that stupid. It was pretty clear that the video was not trying to say that they all stood there for a full 22 seconds without saying a word. No one who has seen a debate would believe that anyone would go that long without speaking, including the debate moderators or even the audience.
 
Third, spare me the b.s. white knighting against “doctored” videos. “We’re taking a tough line on manipulated campaign videos before viewers are flooded with so many fakes that they have trouble knowing what is true.” Give me a break. Do you see why I said that these people think low of you? They really do believe you have the intellectual capabilities of a fish on drugs and you need to be watched over and your hand held throughout these campaign videos so you can be told what is real and what is not.
 
It only sounds to me like the guy takes far too much pride in the pathetic work that he is doing, believes himself to be a hero draped in a cape, saving the populace by pointing out that an obviously fake video is fake (shall we call him “Captain Obvious”?), and is utterly patronizing of people he believes are nowhere near as intelligent as he is because HE works at the oh, so prestigious Washington Post, which is a bastion of intelligence, integrity and truth (ignoring that they had an op-ed recently saying that the elites in America should have a bigger say in our elections, so Democracy Dies in Democracy, apparently).
 
No, Glenn Kessler (the guy that wrote this WaPo article), you are not “taking a tough line on manipulated campaign videos." You’re taking seriously something that is not supposed to be taken seriously by anyone because you have no sense of humor at all and could not identify comedy if it threw a pie in your face.
 
I don’t like Bloomberg at all, believe him to be every bit the communist he says Bernie is (and actually is), and is completely dry in humor and as charismatic as drying paint, but the video that his team put together earned a bit of a chuckle from me because I could understand perfectly well, as well as the other 2 million+ people that watched it, that it was meant to be humorous (again, for a campaign whose candidate is utterly lacking in it).
 
Next thing you know, the WaPo will give the “why did the chicken cross the road” joke “four Pinocchios” because they question the reason a chicken would cross a road in the first place.

Now, one little theory that I have with regards to this (though I have no tangible proof, so take this with a grain of salt) is that the MSM is actually reacting like this on purpose. We know how much many of them dislike Bernie, and Bloomberg did a terrible job in his first debate. I wouldn't put it past them to run with this as cover to distract people from that terrible debate performance. Whether it was collaboration between the Bloomberg campaign and the MSM, or the Bloomberg campaign with the DNC and the MSM, I have no idea.

Again, I have no proof of this and it very well could be that these people really are just this stupid (they have proven to be this ridiculously intellectually deficient in the past), but it is interesting how the topic of conversation is that video now, and not the terrible performance from Bloomberg.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

Earlier this week, I wrote an article talking about the contradictions of the climate cult with regard to climate change causing both low and high water levels in the Great Lakes and trees simultaneously worsening and solving climate change. This time, however, let’s point out a different contradiction altogether (that doesn’t really have much to do with climate change… sort of): the contradiction in the Left’s belief that the billionaire class should pay for every government program listed and not-yet listed in massive communist takeover plans like the Green New Deal, while also believing that billionaires should not exist whatsoever.
 
Recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on ABC’s “The View”. On the segment, one of the show’s co-hosts, Sunny Hostin, asked AOC: “Congresswoman, Mike Bloomberg has spent over $300 million of his own money on his campaign, and the DNC changed the rules about donor threshold to give Mike Bloomberg a space on the debate stage tonight. I personally don’t have a problem with Mike Bloomberg using his own money. I have more of a problem with his positions on – ever-changing positions on stop and frisk and redlining. Do you think he’s trying to buy his way into the presidency?”
 
AOC replied by saying: “Yes, I do. I also think that the power of his money is not disconnected from his stances on stop and frisk because when you have that much money, and you purchase elections, you no longer have that sense of accountability to the people who voted for you.”
 
In general, most people in Congress don’t have that sense of accountability. They believe that, once they get elected into some sort of office, they now rank higher than the general populace and the people work for them, as opposed to the other way around (at least, they think this internally, but would never dream say this out loud. Even the Chicoms say that China is “the people’s republic” when it is not the people’s nor a republic). I can guarantee people like Mitt Romney, who is from Michigan, was elected to be Massachusetts’ governor and recently elected to be one of Utah’s senators, does not care one wit about the people who voted for him in any place. He used them to obtain political power for various reasons and does not feel like he owes anyone anything.
 
But regardless of that little tangent to rave about how much of a farce many who hold government office are, let’s continue with AOC’s reply:
 
“And here’s the thing… if the amount of money that you have can force the DNC to change their rules, but the DNC would not change their rules for Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, that is an actualization of power.”
 
Wouldn’t that be more of a knock on the Democrat Party than anything else? It goes to show just how corrupt the DNC is in allowing someone to pay a substantial “in-kind contribution”, if you will, in order to change the primary rules to accommodate for that “donor”. I don’t know how that is much different from accepting a bribe, but we all know that the DNC won’t see much of a punishment here outside of the ballot box come November.
 
But here’s the real kicker of AOC’s reply: “And we all know how I feel about billionaires. I don’t think in a place where 60 percent of Americans can’t even, you know, make more than $40,000 a year that the presence of a billionaire who largely makes their money off of businesses underpaying their workers like Walmart, like Amazon, like so on, should exist.”
 
Obviously, I have a few things to say about this. First of all, people can make more than $40,000 a year. It’s just about the way you go about achieving that. Plenty of people can get a job that earns them $100,000 or more, provided they are willing to work for it. The people that can’t make more than $40,000 a year tend to be those who work in lower-earning jobs. Now, before you say “no duh, Sherlock”, what I’m trying to say is that if you work in a low-earning job, you will make low-earning wages. Minimum wage was never supposed to be for people to have a career. It was never supposed to be for people to live out of. It’s a sad reality that people think it should be because it highlights the low expectations some people have for themselves that they think they can’t make more money otherwise.
 
Secondly, while I don’t know much about how Amazon pays its workers, I know that the type of work usually found in Walmart is around the level of minimum wage – jobs like being a cashier, or restocking supplies and a number of other jobs – in general, things that aren’t bound to make much money for people because of the laws of supply and demand.  By which I mean that you don't need a degree to do these jobs, so virtually anyone could do them. Not everyone can be a CEO of a business, but virtually anyone can get a job to stand behind a register.
 
This is a concept that is foreign to socialists like AOC, who naively believe it takes no effort at all to be the CEO of a company. Now, I will be the first to say that, since I am not a CEO, I do not know exactly what it does take to hold such a position and how hard it is to do that job. However, the same can be said of socialists like AOC and other regular people who also believe it’s super easy while never actually having held that job, so it balances out. My point is that pretty much anyone can have a regular job at Walmart. So easy it is, in fact, that teenagers in high school often take those kinds of jobs during the summer or part-time. However, give those same teenagers the job of a CEO, and they won’t be able to do it, at least well.
 
The workers of Walmart are not “underpaid”. They are given the wages according to the value of their jobs and according to the value of the work they accomplish (and according to the minimum wage established by the government, which is ridiculous communist b.s.).
 
But third and my final point, it is ridiculous that people like AOC, who demand billionaires pay for the crappy government programs they want to install, also think billionaires shouldn’t exist.
 
I’ve said this time and time again, but billionaires alone cannot possibly afford portions of the Green New Deal, let alone the entire thing. However, there are ignoramuses out there who do believe they can afford it and are just too cheap to “pay their fair share” (which wouldn’t be fair at all anyway).
 
For the sake of the following argument, let’s say that billionaires could actually afford every government program the Left is clamoring for. Let’s say (God forbid) Democrats win it all in November, winning the presidency with any of the socialists on the Democrat Party becoming the POTUS, winning the Senate and holding a decent majority, and retain the House, maybe even grow their majority. And let’s say the Green New Deal gets passed on day 1 of the new regime and all billionaires have to give up all their money, possessions, etc. as a collective to be able to afford it.
 
Now, there are no more billionaires… what happens to the GND and the entire country? Billionaires are the ones that have to pay for all of this, but what happens when there are no more billionaires? The GND isn’t a one-time cost. Everything in it demands constant inflow of cash to pay for it. But now, there are no more billionaires. They gave up all their fortune – all their possessions – to pay for the GND. It would hypothetically last for a bit, but again, a constant inflow of cash is required. After some time, the billionaire’s money will have been totally spent and the bill remains the same: the amount of money the billionaires had to pay originally.
 
What happens then? It goes down to the next people on the list: the millionaires. However, there is a massive difference between a million dollars and a billion dollars. When you have one million dollars, you have one million dollars. When you have one billion dollars, you have a thousand million dollars. If it took the billionaires to pay for it, it’s going to take more than the millionaires to continue the upkeep cost.
 
So we go down the next people on the list: upper-middle class. And so on and so forth we go.
 
Margaret Thatcher is famous for a number of reasons, but particularly for saying: “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” That is precisely what would happen with the GND no matter what.
 
Billionaires cannot afford to pay for the GND of their own merit, but even if they could, why would you want them to cease to exist? That would only destroy the GND and the other government plans, at least as they are being sold to people.
 
Now, I’m not fooled by this nonsense. The GND isn’t supposed to do what it tells people it will do. It’s just supposed to be a communist takeover of the capitalist economic system in America. All the programs within it would be installed, but none of them would work right, not even a little. You see this happen everywhere you see socialism/communism.
 
However, if you’re going to sell people on the idea of GND, and attached to that idea is the belief that billionaires should pay for it, it makes zero sense whatsoever to also believe that billionaires should not exist. They are the only people who (in their minds) can pay for all this stuff, so eliminating the billionaire class would be like biting the hand that feeds you at that point.
 
The Green New Deal is a massive failure, even if the Left gets everything they want out of it. And they are just ignorant enough to try and antagonize the very people whom they think can afford it.
 
Now, I should specify that I am not strictly talking about the elected Left. I am talking about the Leftist base as well, because they are the ones that believe they can have it both ways. The DNC benefits from the existence of billionaires and won’t do much to jeopardize that relationship. The DNC’s base, however, does not outright benefit from billionaires in the same way and openly and legitimately hate billionaires and the concept of the existence of billionaires. But they are just ignorant enough to believe you can have all this free crap from the government, force those dastardly billionaires to pay for it, and simultaneously have billionaires no longer exist.
 
Everything about the Left is the height of irrationality, no matter how you look at it.
 
Proverbs 10:14
“The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.”

​We are still a decent ways away from the Democrat convention, but I believe I should make my thoughts about one of the so-called “frontrunners” known. Of course, I’ve spoken plenty about Bernie Sanders and the Democrats in general, but I do not think I have specifically talked about the reason why I believe that, even if Bernie wins the nomination, he won’t beat Donald Trump.
 
Now, before I get into that, I wish to point out that I do not think a single one of the Democrats currently running for president has any real chance to beat Trump, including Bernie. However, there are a number of different reasons as to why for each of them.
 
Amy Klobuchar is straight up unlikeable, much like Hillary Clinton was. Joe Biden has demonstrated an intellectual incapability of being POTUS. Mayor Pete is also fairly unlikeable, but the fact that he is gay might hold him back, even among Democrats (I say this taking into consideration one particular Democrat voter who voted for him in Iowa, found out he was gay, and wanted to rescind her vote for him, so homophobia in the Democrat party might play a part, funny enough) and believes shoving the fact that he is gay in Trump’s face will somehow be effective. Tulsi Gabbard is practically out of the race. Andrew Yang is out of the race. And Michael Bloomberg is practically everything the Left accused Trump of being, and yet they seemingly prefer him over Bernie, despite them not being ideologically different from Bernie at all.
 
Which brings me to the reason(s) I do not believe Bernie will win the presidency:
 
First, it’s entirely possible, even likely, that the Democrats will screw Bernie once again and keep him from being their nominee. If you aren’t the nominee of one of the two major political parties, there is virtually zero chance of becoming president, even if running third-party. The closest anyone has come to winning as a third-party candidate is Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, when he ran third-party against Woodrow Wilson and President Taft, and actually garnering more popular and electoral votes than Taft, but the election still went to Wilson. So if Bernie isn’t the nominee this election cycle, I highly doubt he will ever be the nominee in the future, simply due to his age. Bernie is 78. Reagan was 77 WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE.
 
Second, even if Bernie does win the nomination, there are plenty of variables that one should consider. For one, the Democrat Party may not be willing to support him. This one seems the least likely to me, but I think they really fear he will lose in a landslide due to him being openly socialist and that the country does not want to elect a socialist (which is backed up by numerous polls). That fear may hold them back a bit in their open support, but again, I do think they would, at least outwardly, voice support for Bernie.
 
Another variable is what Bloomberg might choose to do. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign ads, in buying various Democrats’ support (including Stacey Abrams, AOC, etc.) and he has just participated in his FIRST debate in the primaries, having fairly recently entered the race. He certainly has the money to run third-party if he so chooses (though not certain about the likelihood of that, if I’m honest). My point is that Bloomberg might try and screw Bernie no matter what and that is likely the reason he got into the race in the first place.
 
But above all else, the final and biggest reason I do not believe Bernie will win the presidency is simply because he is weak. And I do not strictly mean physically weak (being 78 and coming off a heart attack doesn’t help him any) but he is an all-around weak man.
 
Back in 2015, a Bernie Sanders campaign event was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters who took Bernie’s microphone. He hardly tried to fight back against such a rude interruption for his OWN campaign event, walked away entirely and didn’t even give the speech he had been planning on giving.
 
And recently, a Bernie Sanders rally was interrupted by some “animal rights” lunatics who also wrestled away the microphone from Bernie and he just let it happen. Security also took their sweet time resolving the situation, robbing Bernie of precious speaking time in the process as well, as though this is nothing new to them and it’s rather routine for this to happen.
 
It’s pathetic and speaks to Bernie’s weakness as a person, let alone a leader. Do you think, even for a moment, that Donald Trump would allow that to happen at one of his rallies once, let alone twice? Even Democrats would agree that he would likely kick a protester’s behind if they tried to do that.
 
Another example of Bernie’s weakness came from January’s debate, where he was maligned as having said something that he claims he did not say to Elizabeth Warren about a woman “not being able” to become president. I’ve already written an article on that subject, but one thing I failed to mention there is just how weak it made him look. Not the part about being lied about, but the part about how he responded to it. He was rather passive. He defended himself, but he stated he didn’t “want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want.” Really? You’re being maligned as a sexist by the mainstream media and by one of the candidates on that debate and your first intuition is to try and fight Trump in some way?
 
He didn’t even attempt to fight back against Warren’s lack of credibility, which would’ve been like taking candy from a baby. All he had to do was point out how Warren is a proven LIAR and has been a liar practically her entire life as a result of claiming to be Native American and heavily profiting from that lie.

There are other lies as well, such as the lie that she was “fired” from her teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant” when she had previously said in a prior interview that she left of her own merit, saying: “I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college after I’d married. My first year post-graduation, I worked – it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ‘emergency certificate,’ it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’”
 
She didn’t leave that education job because she was “fired” for being “visibly pregnant”. She left that job because she didn’t have the certification to continue in that job, had to go to graduate school to get that certification if she wanted to return and then came to the conclusion that she didn’t think it would work out for her.
 
She’s a serial liar, a deceiver and a daughter of Satan (not that Bernie is much different) and yet, he chose not to fight her on those grounds. And it’s not like Warren ever had much of a chance of winning anyway. He wouldn’t have hurt her in the general because she was never going to be the nominee, but he has/had the chance to become the nominee. He stood to lose the most by having that lie be propagated. He defended himself fairly well, but he chose not to take prime opportunity to destroy someone who was maligning him, with help from the media, and gave a weak reason for his fairly weak response.
 
But even despite all of this – despite the, at this point, plurality in interruptions of his own campaign events and rallies by people who would never get the chance to speak anywhere else; despite the weakness in deciding not to flat-out end an opposing candidate’s campaign while being maligned – despite all of this, there are two major instances that I can think of that make him look especially weak.
 
One, he chose to endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016. Despite the fact that it was blatantly obvious that the Democrat Party screwed him over in the primaries and practically crowned Hillary their nominee, he chose to ENDORSE the woman who had been in cahoots with the DNC and cheated him out of the nomination. Now, as I’ve said in the past, I think Hillary would still have won the nomination even without the cheating (at least in terms of delegates because she still had more normal delegates than Bernie, though it would’ve been a far closer contest without superdelegates). However, they still did cheat Bernie and keep him from having any chance at all at being the nominee. Without the cheating, he still would’ve likely lost the nomination, but he at least would’ve had a chance. The fix was in from the beginning and he stood no chance whatsoever as a result of the cheating.
 
Despite how poorly he had been treated by the Democrat Party, he still chose to endorse Hillary. Now, I do not blame him TOO much here. It was still awfully weak, but I suppose I can understand some of the reasoning. It was Hillary’s “turn” to be the nominee after Obama destroyed her chances in 2008, despite how utterly bogus that is and how utterly corrupt it makes the DNC look (not that that’s any surprise to anyone). If he had tried to run third-party against Hillary, allowing Trump to win by a far bigger margin, he probably would’ve been given the Clinton Special. He might’ve been Epstein’d before Epstein. Plenty of people also expected her to win against Trump, so there wouldn’t have been much point in trying to fight her, especially if people believe she would’ve been the next POTUS.
 
So I can sort of understand why he would choose to endorse Hillary. Still made him look pretty weak (just not endorsing her would’ve been better), but I get it.
 
However, I cannot possibly understand what he recently said about the Democrat nominee for this election cycle.
 
During a town hall on CNN earlier this week, Bernie said of Bloomberg: “I do think it’s a bit obscene that we have somebody who, by the way, chose not to contest in Iowa, in Nevada, in South Carolina, in New Hampshire, where all of the candidates, we did town meetings. We’re talking to thousands and thousands of people, working hard. He said, I don’t have to do that. I’m worth $60 billion. I have more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. I’ll buy the presidency. That offends me very much.”
 
He added: “I think we’re going to take a look at his record. And there are a number of things about his record that I think the American people may not know. As the mayor of New York City, he was very aggressive in pushing so-called stop and frisk… So, his policies humiliated and offended hundreds of thousands of people, and I think that is something that is worthy of discussion.”
 
So far, so good, right? It sounds like he is making his thoughts known about Bloomberg and that he doesn’t like the guy, right? He sounds like he is willing to put up a fight against him, right? Well, he later said: “[If] Mr. Bloomberg wins, and I certainly hope he does not, I will support the Democratic nominee.”
 
… Really? After all that’s been happening. After the numerous times you’ve gotten screwed by the Democrat Party. After voicing all your concerns about Bloomberg and how he is quite literally the very crony capitalist you claim to loathe and actually believe should not have the possibility of existing… you are going to support him if he wins the nomination? Are you freaking kidding me?
 
Of course, I believe the reason for this is he is trying to negotiate with Bloomberg, essentially saying: “I’m willing to be bought out of the race, but the price has to be fairly high.” There is no reason, before the convention happens and all the votes are counted, to say “I will support the nominee.” That’s a decision one can come to afterwards, but saying this now shows that he is both weak and willing to be bought.
 
But do you see why I say he is weak? Bloomberg hasn’t even outright won against him yet and Bernie is willing to say he will support a guy he clearly thinks is racist and should not even have anywhere near as much money as he has.
 
Again, I can understand not trying to get in Hillary’s bad sides, and even somewhat could understand endorsing her, even after the poor treatment he received from the DNC. But now, there is no candidate who has their “turn” to be the nominee. Bernie isn’t being screwed because it’s someone else’s turn. He’s being screwed because the Democrat Party doesn’t want him within 10 feet of their nomination. And yet, despite that b.s., he is willing to support the Democrat nominee, even if it’s Bloomberg, clearly not because he likes the guy, but because he is both weak and can be bought for the right price.
 
This is why Bernie will never be president. The only advantage he has is his grassroots base, which isn’t even anywhere near as big as Trump’s grassroots base. He is the only candidate I’ve seen be able to draw in big crowds on the Democrat side, but that’s only been a fairly recent development and the crowds pale in comparison to Trump’s.
 
Bernie Sanders will never be president because he simply doesn’t have the guts to do it. He is a very weak man who would be destroyed by Trump in the debates to the point the Democrats will try and impeach him for the murder of Bernie’s campaign.
 
Bernie is too weak of a man to be able to become president. He just doesn’t have it. Not that it bothers me in any way. The guy is a communist and if he never wins the presidency, that’s only good news.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

There are roughly two or three narratives regarding the economy in certain Leftists’ minds. One of them is that the economy is not doing well at all, and that someone has to “fix” it, which is a very clear lie that even contradicts a different narrative that I will cover in a second. Another narrative is that the economy is nothing special and we should not focus on it. That is the narrative many on the Left choose to follow, sort of, because the economy is doing too good for them to realistically argue against it. They would much rather attack Trump’s “racism” or “sexism” or “bigotry” than tackle his successful track record as POTUS because they know they would come up awfully short (especially Michael Bloomberg). But finally, the third narrative is one that only one person would be foolish enough to try: Obama is the one who can take credit for this economy.
 
And who else to try and peddle this hilarious lie than the former Liar-in-Chief, former President Barack Hussein Obama?
 
Earlier this week, Obama tweeted: “Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.”
 
In the words of a certain communist former president: “You didn’t build that.”
 
It is laughable that Obama would try to take credit for this economy (yet again) because we saw nothing of the sort regarding job creation or economic recovery at any point in his presidency.
 
A Forbes op-ed published in 2016, the last full year of Obama’s presidency, said: “The Obama recovery of the last seven years remains the worst in post-war American history. Average gross domestic product (GDP) growth since the bottom of the recession in 2009 was barely above 2.1% per year. The average since 1949 is well above 4% per year during the previous 10 expansions.”
 
“I believe the root cause of abysmal growth is the huge tax increases imposed by Obama and the Democrats in Congress since 2008. The most harmful were the increase in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent, the increase in top bracket income from 35 to 39.6 percent, and the new tax of 3.8 percent on investment income in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The massive increase in regulatory burden through the ACA and Dodd-Frank bills are also crushing, but unfortunately are harder to measure.”
 
Investor’s Business Daily also pointed out how bad the Obama economy was back in 2018 when the former POTUS also tried to take credit for the Trump economy:
 
“The rate of GDP growth was decelerating in Obama’s last year. It went from 2.3% in Q2, to 1.9% in Q3 to 1.8% in Q4 of 2016. Under Trump, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%. It was 4.2% last quarter and might be higher in the current one. The stock market also was stuck in neutral the year before the November 2016 elections. The Dow is up by some 45% since then.”
 
“Real median family income didn’t budge from August 2015 to November 2016, according to Sentier Research. It’s up more than 4% since Trump came into office. Wages are on the upswing. In Obama’s last year, unemployment rate remained basically unchanged – it was 4.9% in Jan. 2016, and 4.8% when Trump took office in Jan. 2017. Now it’s down to 3.9%.”
 
The National Review also highlighted some of Trump’s economic accomplishments since taking office:
 
“The census report ten days ago revealed workers’ earnings increasing at 3.4 percent annually, a rate not seen since the best of the Reagan years, and the poverty rate has declined to 11.8 percent, the best figure that has been recorded since the end of the Clinton administration and still resolutely proceeding in the right direction. Unemployment is at its lowest percentage since the Lyndon Johnson administration more than 50 years ago (and the numbers then were helped by having 545,000 conscripts in Vietnam). Minority groups are the principal beneficiaries of the Trump economy; it isn’t trickle-down, it’s surge-up. Average income for female-led single-parent households jumped 7.6 percent last year, well ahead of gains in higher income groups.”
 
“The poverty rate among female-led households fell 2.7 percent for African Americans, and 4 percent for Hispanics. Industries largely populated by women (and, historically, exploited women), especially hospitality and, to a lesser extent, health care, showed strong earnings gains, even as unemployment rates for African-American and Hispanic women fell to under 4.5 percent.”
 
“Another partisan Democratic falsehood that is exposed by the census is the myth that the middle class is shrinking. The percentage of total families at the lowest economic levels has fallen by over 1 whole percent and the brackets from $50,000 to $150,000 and above $200,000 have both increased by almost 1 whole percent (several million people in each case). There were sharp increases in the incomes of younger families (up to age 34).”
 
The contrast between the Obama and Trump economies are day and night, with the Obama economy having been absolute garbage and the Trump economy being the best economy we have seen in decades. It’s no surprise that jealous Barack Obama would attempt to take credit for this economy, which he had nothing to do with.
 
It’s also no surprise that the President’s team (as well as Trump himself and a slew of other people) reacted with mockery or simply telling it like it is in order to set the record straight as to whom should the credit go.
 
In a statement to Fox News from the Trump campaign’s national press secretary: “President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy. Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history. By contrast, through deregulating, lowering taxes, and supporting free-market policies, President Trump has created the hottest economy on record, with unemployment hitting generational lows and all-time lows for African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled, veterans and many other hard-working Americans.”
 
“Paychecks are growing at the fastest pace in a decade and twice as fast for low- and middle-income Americans. It’s no wonder Democrats seek to take credit for the Trump economy after eight years of betraying blue-collar workers and inflicting pain upon the middle class as Americans everywhere suffered.”
 
“But the failed days of Democrat stagnation are over, and the soaring Trump economy is here to stay,” added the press secretary.
 
The President himself reacted to this on Twitter, writing: “Did you hear the latest con job? President Obama is now trying to take credit for the Economic Boom taking place under the Trump Administration. He had the WEAKEST recovery since the Great Depression, despite Zero Fed Rate & MASSIVE quantitative easing. NOW, best jobs numbers ever. Had to rebuild our military, which was totally depleted. Fed Rate UP, taxes and regulations WAY DOWN. If Dems won in 2016, the USA would be in big economic (Depression?) & military trouble right now. THE BEST IS YET TO COME. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”
 
As previously said, it really is no surprise that Obama would try and steal credit for the good economy. For EIGHT YEARS, he blamed his predecessor for a bad economy. And while that could feasibly work for the first couple of years coming off a recession that began with the previous administration, the economy was TERRIBLE for his entire tenure in both terms.
 
I remember hearing Bill Clinton trying to give Obama credit for a “great” economic recovery that “even he” could not have orchestrated back during the 2016 election cycle to get people to believe the economy was good and that Hillary would continue Obama’s legacy (which she would have but that isn’t a good thing), but there was no such economic recovery. Things HARDLY got much better and that’s because the only place to go for the Obama economy was up, and even THEN, it didn’t go up by much.
 
The unemployment rates went down largely because people either stopped looking for jobs, got government contract work or got part-time jobs. Things that make the unemployment rate go down artificially. Trump’s economic recovery is REAL growth for our country, with people finding full-time jobs and there being a virtual SURPLUS of jobs.
 
The stock market went up during the Obama years largely because companies were buying their own stocks to artificially raise them. The only thing that’s artificial about the Trump economy is the fake news media’s claims that we are headed towards a recession, and even that garbage has largely been dropped because of how virtually IMPOSSIBLE it is for a recession to happen in this economic climate.
 
Obama was a terrible jobs president, to the point where he openly mocked Trump’s promises to bring manufacturing jobs back, saying “what magic wand do you have?”
 
Well, this is his magic wand: A REAL ECONOMY WITH A REAL RECOVERY FROM OBAMA’S TERRIBLE TENURE AS POTUS.
 
An economy so good, most Democrats will go to lengths to avoid discussing it, some Democrats will foolishly and laughably attempt to severely downplay it, and one will attempt to take sole credit for it when such credit is not due to him.
 
THIS is how you Make America Great Again.
 
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”

Liberty is once again the victor against tyranny, as Virginia senators voted against instituting an “assault weapons” ban that Gov. “Coonman” had been clamoring for for a while now.
 
The AP reports: “Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s push to ban the sale of assault weapons has failed after members of his own party balked at the proposal. Senators voted to shelve the bill for the year and ask the state crime commission to study the issue, an outcome that drew cheers from a committee room packed with gun advocates. Four moderate Democrats joined Republicans in Monday’s committee vote, rejecting legislation that would have prohibited the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, including popular AR-15 style rifles, and banned the possession of magazines that hold more than 12 rounds. The bill was a top priority for Northam, a Democrat who has campaigned heavily for a broad package of gun-control measures.”
 
A few things to say about this.
 
First, the bill technically is not completely dead. Like the report said, the senators voted to shelve it for the year, deciding to run a study to determine whether or not such a ban would be beneficial to the state (it wouldn’t be, at all, but we shall see what the study decides to say). So this is, by no means, the end of the story. Virginia Democrats will be irate at this (as will other Democrats in general) and will seek to bring this sort of thing back if they have the chance to do so.
 
Which brings me to the second thing: this particular bill, as it is currently put together, is more than likely dead for good. I know that sounds contradictory to what I just said, particularly in saying that it’s technically not completely dead, but I have good reason to say this. While Democrats are, obviously, vowing that they will try again in 2021, Sheriff Scott Jenkins believes the bill “will die”, largely because 2021 is an election year for Virginia, one of only two states in the country (the other being New Jersey) where state elections happen in off years.
 
If you remember, I covered the latest Virginia state elections to some extent (alongside Kentucky and Mississippi). It was in the 2019 state elections when Democrats took complete, though fairly narrow, control over the state legislature, with Democrats having won 21 out of 40 total seats in the House of Delegates and 53 out of 100 seats in the Senate. Again, narrow, but a majority nonetheless.
 
So when this “assault weapons” ban began to be brewed up, we honestly expected it to go through with little problem. After all, Democrats tend to be unified, right? They never stray from the collective, never dissent and never disagree, right? Well, the Democrats don’t seem to be as perfectly unified as the mainstream media would have us believe, and this clearly goes well beyond the circus that is the Democrat Primary process.
 
The idea behind the bill is still alive, as Democrats will always attempt to take away our rights, especially as it pertains to our right to self defense and gun ownership, but the particular bill will not likely be passed in a year, regardless of what the study will indicate.
 
Which brings me to my third point, the four “moderate” Democrats that voted against the “assault weapons” ban. I will give them credit for having voted this way, as I will give credit wherever it’s due. But they are not “moderates” by far. According to Hot Air: “These ‘moderate’ Democrats all voted for the ‘Virginia Values Act,” a bill which “will give Virginia some of the nation’s most left-wing employment laws, and the $15 minimum wage, which will wipe out 100,000 plus jobs.”
 
What’s more, the “assault weapons” ban is not the only gun control bill being discussed in the state legislature. There is a bill that would limit handgun purchases to only one a month and there is a proposed “red-flag” law being considered. I don’t exactly expect Virginia Democrats to be divided on these things.
 
But there is definitely cause for celebration considering the “assault weapons” ban is pretty much dead and “Coonman” doesn’t get to play communist dictator in the state of Virginia. This is a major blow to the communists and the gun control lobby (but I repeat myself), considering the major headlines that came out of this bill.
 
Many people went out into the streets to protest this bill, voicing their desire and commitment to protect their Second Amendment rights. Even multiple counties and county sheriffs voiced their displeasure with the bill, saying that they would refuse to enforce that law and many counties outright stated they would become “sanctuary” counties for the Second Amendment, refusing to follow the state’s radical gun control laws should they pass.
 
And while the media, unsurprisingly, tried to characterize the people that attended that march as “racists” and that it had the potential to become “violent”, given the open carrying of guns in that march, nothing of the sort happened or even really had the potential for happening (point to me someone who would be willing to fire at a crowd of armed people and I will point you to the dumbest person in the world) and I believe some people took notice. This bill had the potential to be an absolute killer for the Democrat Party in Virginia.
 
The ONLY reason they won as many seats as they did in 2019 is because many of those seats were utterly uncontested. There were no Republican candidates to run against the Democrats, so naturally, the winners were the unopposed Democrats. If the Virginia GOP had any sort of spine, they wouldn’t have allowed any race to simply go to the Democrat and the state likely wouldn’t be where it is now. “Coonman” may still be governor (again, if the Virginia GOP had a spine, they would’ve destroyed Northam on his blatant racism and hypocrisy but never ran on this), but the legislature would most likely still be in Republican hands, even if it is a fairly slim majority like what the Democrats have now.
 
There isn’t much room for error in that legislature and if the people of Virginia are irate at them, they will voice that irritation both in the streets (as they clearly showed) and at the ballot box.
 
But for now, let us celebrate the victory of liberty over tyranny, knowing that the Second Amendment won’t take a massive blow in Virginia (for now). Let us also remain wary at the desires of the communist Democrats. They will not rest until the people of Virginia (and the people of this country) cannot protect themselves with guns. They won’t rest until the people are incapable of fighting against the authoritarianism these people wish to bring about.
 
Celebrate this victory but be ready to continue this fight.
 
Proverbs 16:12
“It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”

This is not the first time I have pointed out the flat-out contradictions made by the climate cult. The day before Christmas last year, I talked about how different cultist “scientists” said flatly contradicting things about climate change, namely about how obesity “caused” global warming and that global warming would “lead to starvation”.
 
So basically, the problem should theoretically take care of itself, then, but of course, that wasn’t the message being given by the cult.
 
But now we return with TWO more contradictions by the climate cult, both of which I find utterly hilarious.
 
Let’s begin with the first contradiction mentioned in the title: the one about the Great Lakes and water levels.
 
You see, back in the early 2010s, namely 2012 and 2013, the Great Lakes experienced unusually low water levels. Given the frenzy of global warming in the cult’s mind, at the time, multiple people on the Left blamed climate change for “drying up” the Great Lakes.
 
From National Geographic in 2012: “Warming Lakes: Climate Change and Variability Drive Low Water Levels on the Great Lakes.” The fake news didn’t end there, because the article’s subhead reads: “Low water levels expose the sandy lake bottom on Lake Michigan,” accompanied by a photo of a rusted boat sitting on top of sand with some water around it. This is largely fake news because what was being talked about was not “lake bottom”. Lake Michigan is over 900 feet deep. If the entire lake dried up to that point THAT would be cause for major concern, but nothing of the sort has occurred.
 
From a local radio station’s online article in 2011: “Gore links Great Lakes problems to climate change.” “Former Vice President Al Gore says dealing with the climate change crisis is essential to fixing some of the environmental problems plaguing the Great Lakes.”
 
Keep that little quote in mind as we go along.
 
From Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin in 2013: “Recent record-low water levels in Lake Michigan are evidence that global warming is leading to ‘the evaporation of our Great Lakes.’”
 
Based on this, we surely must do something to combat climate change! What can be done?! THIS IS A CRISI- what do you mean the water levels are at record-highs now? Wasn’t global warming evaporating the Great Lakes? Oh, our friendly neighborhood Democrats are telling us it’s see-sawing and climate change is causing the climate to be erratic and highly dynamic? But isn’t our ecosystem dynamic anyway so change is bound to happen regardless of what people do? You’re telling me to shut up because that makes far too much sense for this topic? We should just say it’s still climate change even though that’s a blatant contradiction? Okay.
 
That’s what the Left wants us to believe and honestly expects us to believe because they think we are just that stupid (though the cult’s intellect is probably hovering around that area anyway). Roughly a decade ago, the Great Lakes were “evaporating” because of climate change and today, they are at record-highs, apparently also because of climate change.
 
From The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2019: “Researchers think they know what’s causing record water levels on and flooding around the Great Lakes: climate change.” Do they know? Because a decade ago, their stories were the exact same when the situation was the opposite. They still blamed climate change (man-made, specifically) for low water levels in the Great Lakes, so now that they’re at record-highs, that’s also climate change?
 
The irony in all of this is that we can clearly see what has been historically happening in these lakes because there is documented data going back a CENTURY. According to the Southeastern Wisconsin Coastal Resilience, Lake Michigan’s water levels were around what we see today back in much of the 1970s, some in the 1980s when it experienced a record-high (that according to the chart is still the record, but this is an article from August of 2019). Then, it went back down a lot and stayed down plenty during the 2000s and roughly the first half of the 2010s (nearing record-lows around the time of those “global warming is evaporating the Great Lakes” articles, which, by the way, were not too different from other lows back in the 1920s, 1930s and 1960s) and then went back up to the levels we see now.
 
You can more easily see what I mean here:
​

​As you can see, over the last 100 years, the various levels of water found in Lake Michigan have not been particularly weird. Water levels tend to go up and down. The reason for the latest rise is because of a combination of high precipitation and a cold winter, which led to water being frozen and causing less of it to evaporate. These are not abnormalities for our planet, not by a long shot.
 
And yet, despite the clear evidence of how NORMAL it is for the Great Lakes to act in this manner, any level of water that is outside the Left’s comfort zone (which is practically non-existent) is blamed on anthropogenic climate change, which is laughable at best. The data is right there. Man-made climate change is NOT REAL. The climate is dynamic because that is how the environment is. It’s the way God created this planet. I can guarantee there is NOTHING humanity could’ve possibly done in less than a decade to go from record-low water levels to record-high water levels, at least in terms of what the cult says we do with regards to the climate.
 
For all the Left tells us, we’ve only been doing worse and worse in “combating” climate change, to the point where we only have 10 years left (though that’s far from the first doomsday prediction these people have made) and yet, we see such radical change in the Great Lakes. Mankind was blamed for low water levels when they were low and now, we’re blamed for high water levels now that they’re high.
 
Any wonder we keep saying how much of a hoax this whole thing is? Any wonder I accuse these people of orchestrating massive cop-outs when things don’t go as they predicted, but only double-down in saying climate change has caused this new situation?
 
But like I mentioned in the title, the Great Lakes debacle wasn’t the only contradiction I had in store for this article.
 
Now let’s move on to how trees both cause and solve climate change, seemingly at the same time and in the same relationship. For those of you who have been reading my articles for some time, you know what I am about to bring up: the Law of Non-contradiction.
 
The Law of Non-contradiction simply states that something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, I cannot be a father and a son at the same time and in the same relationship. I can be a father and I can be a son at the same time – I can be my child’s father (provided I had one) and I can be my father’s child – but I cannot be my own father or my own child, as that would violate a basic law of logic.
 
And yet, this is what the Left has done with regard to the idea of planting trees (which is in some ways surprising and in others not particularly surprising).
 
According to CBS News from 2018: “Planting a trillion trees could be the ‘most effective solution’ to climate change, study says.”
 
That seems to be the conventional wisdom: trees good; no trees bad. Live Science also echoes that sentiment, writing: “Want to Fight Climate Change? Plant 1 Trillion Trees.”
 
But according to Discover Magazine: “We Can’t Just Plant Billions of Trees to Stop Climate Change.”
 
According to Climate News Network (no, not CNN) in 2017: “Planting trees will not slow global warming.”
 
Even the UN’s IPCC in August of 2019 said: “global-scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth’s climate.” (That's from a PDF file, so no link directly to it, but ClimateDepot's article talks a bit about it)
 
So trees both cause climate change, according to these guys and trees are the solution to climate change according to the ones mentioned earlier.
 
What are we to do, then, because some people say “plant a trillion trees”, which would not really be particularly effective (aside from the fact that we can’t alter the climate) because there are around three trillion trees on Earth, according to a Scientific American study from 2015, which is a staggering increase from the previous estimate of 400 million. That means that the number of trees has increased 7,500-fold between that previous estimate and the most recent one.
 
Planting another trillion would not really do anything. Planting trees and not planting trees both seem to both be good and bad things for the planet at the same time and in the same relationship. It literally makes no sense and someone here is not telling the truth. Either trees are good for the planet or they aren’t. I can buy that having too many trees can be bad and that not having enough can be bad too. What I cannot possibly buy is the idea that planting trees is, at the same time and in the same relationship, a way to “solve” climate change and make it worse.
 
So we have two particular contradictions here: the Great Lakes’ water levels, both low and high, are because of climate change and trees both solve and worsen climate change.
 
And the only solution to this lunacy is, apparently, giving up all our rights and freedoms to the government so that they can “solve it”. Yeah, that’s a hard “no” for me, bud.
 
But it is always hilarious to take note of the grave inconsistencies found within what the cult even tries to sell, to the point they are selling outright contradicting talking points with the most serious of faces.
 
Proverbs 14:5
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”