Usually, attacking an opponent’s family is uncalled for and distasteful (unless that family member is or was in politics themselves, such as Bill Clinton). It’s a tactic that the Left uses sometimes, and a tactic that failed Republican nominee Jeb Bush used recently.
According to the Daily Wire, the biggest failure of the Bush family (and that’s saying something) had a talk “sponsored by The William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale University,” where he said that “after the 2016 Republican primary in South Carolina, he returned home to children who ‘actually love me,’” thus attacking both Trump and his family.
His anger after the 2016 primary loss is clear and present. Much like Hillary Clinton, Jeb’s defeat has severely affected him, given that during that appearance at Yale University, he also said: “I’m not going to talk about the 2016 election. I’m still in therapy.”
I don’t know if he meant that as a joke or not, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he really was in therapy. Particularly given the response from Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter: “Jeb! I love everything about my father. I love that he’s a fighter, I love that he has guts, I love that he’s President (all those things you’re not). Also love that he learned enough about politics in a few weeks to dismantle you piece by piece despite it being your life’s work.”
Here’s some advice for Jeb Bush: apply cold water to the burned area.
All of those things are hard truths about Jeb Bush. He’s not a fighter (something that I think even he knows). That much was evident during the campaign. And that much would’ve been expected had he become the Republican candidate. He wouldn’t have fought hard against Hillary. Much like Romney didn’t fight hard against Obama. Same goes for McCain (though I doubt he would’ve won against him even if he had actually fought hard).
The Establishment’s darlings don’t ever fight hard. They are more than happy with being the gracious losers of elections. They don’t fight the fire with fire. They fight fire with ice. And they’re more than happy to keep things that way. It’s part of the reason they hate Trump as much as they do.
He also is lacking in guts. Part of fighting hard is having the willingness and the guts to do it. While Bush’s pride may make him believe that he does have guts, reality is far different from his imagination.
The third truth is one that surely stings more than the previous two: Trump is President and he’s not. Now, without the guts and willingness to fight hard against Hillary, he likely was not going to be President anyway. But what stings him more than not being President is seeing that the man he hates most in this world is sitting at the Oval Office and running this country.
Like I said, the Establishment is more than happy with being gracious losers. Not being President is not what stings Jeb more. It’s the fact that Trump actually IS President that angers him.
But the final comment, and hard truth, in Trump Jr’s. tweet is what surely destroys Jeb the most. It’s not that he is not a fighter that hurts him. He knows he’s not a fighter. It’s not that he’s gutless. It’s not even that he’s not President and Trump is that hurts him the most. It’s the fact that, despite being a career politician, being in the Establishment, being a member of the Bush family and having been a governor of one of the largest states in the country (Florida), he was soundly beaten by someone who’s never held political office before.
He was beaten by someone who’s only had to play politics in order to gain favor in building projects. He was beaten by someone who wasn’t simply outside of the Establishment, but was outside of the career of POLITICS altogether.
And all of this happened, resulting in an embarrassing loss for Jeb Bush. Donald Trump ended the primaries with 1,457 pledged delegates. Jeb ended the primaries with 4.
Jeb was nowhere near among the biggest contenders for the nomination. Even his fellow Establishment candidates, Marco Rubio and John Kasich did considerably better, with 166 and 160 delegates respectively.
Aside from being a massive defeat for the Republican Establishment, this was an even bigger defeat for Jeb, someone who was born into the right family, ran at the right time when America was getting sick of Obama’s policies and the likelihood of a Republican winning was a tad higher than the previous two elections, and had made a career within the realm of politics to understand it and experience it up close.
He had a lot of things going for himself and ended up being utterly spanked by someone who had spent less than a year in politics by the time he announced his withdrawal from the primaries.
His anger is clear as well as the reason for it. At least he’s likely doing considerably better than Hillary Clinton. If there’s any former candidate from the 2016 election that needs therapy it would be her.
“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”
Do you know who has even less credibility than the scientists who believe in Climate Change? The Leftist writers who believe in Climate Change and take every word of these idiotic scientists at face value.
That’s the case with New York magazine writer David Wallace-Wells, who wrote insane drivel about Climate Change and its future consequences.
He writes: “Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts. It is five times the size of the death toll of the Great Leap Forward – the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced. It is three times the greatest death toll of any kind: World War II.”
There’s faulty logic everywhere in a Climate Change believer’s arguments, but this takes it a step forward in how illogical it is.
For decades now, the Left has been shouting and screaming and making urgent the matter of Global Warming (aka Climate Change when they saw that the world wasn’t actually getting as hot as they predicted it would). They touted it as the biggest threat to humanity – an apocalyptic-level threat. 150 million people, while still a lot, is nowhere close to the 7 billion people currently residing on Earth.
That’s not exactly an apocalyptic-level threat. When a liberal thinks of Climate Change, they think about (among other things) that it will be the end of humanity. That statement goes against the very things the Left has been touting about Climate Change for over 20 years.
Now, that number didn’t come from his own head. It came from an actual scientific paper written by Drew Shindell, a Professor of Earth Sciences at Duke University.
His paper, titled: “Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated carbon dioxide emissions reductions,” reads as follows: “… We therefore examine the human health benefits of increasing 21st-century CO2 reductions by 180 GtC (wish I could tell you what that means), an amount that would shift a ‘standard’ 2 degree Celsius scenario to 1.5 degrees Celsius or could achieve 2 degrees Celsius without negative emissions. The decreased air pollution leads to 153 plus-minus 43 million fewer premature deaths worldwide, with roughly 40% occurring during the next 40 years, and minimal climate disbenefits. More than a million premature deaths would be prevented in many metro-politan areas in Asia and Africa, and 200,000 in individual urban areas on every inhabited continent except Australia.”
That all sounds like one massive pile of b.s., particularly since most of it is difficult to understand just what the heck it’s even saying. Of course, I know that it’s one trick by the Left to claim that we are simpletons and don’t understand the finer things on this matter. Frankly, I challenge any regular liberal to translate this into English. But context is everything, even on this manner.
Let’s pay attention to the part about the degrees Celsius.
According to a “skeptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg: “… if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise (made in the Paris Climate Agreement) by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048 degrees Celsius by 2100.” In other words, every nation on Earth could do everything they could to reduce the global temperature and they’d only manage to reduce it by 1/20th of a degree Celsius, far off from that desired 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius this scientist claims we should (and must) achieve.
So even in a best-case scenario that every country in the Agreement (or even the world) could pull their own weight in fighting Climate Change (which is VERY far from being the case), we’d still not see significant results by the end of the CENTURY.
But returning to the SINO (Scientific In Name Only) paper, James Delingpole from Breitbart puts it best: “You really don’t need a PhD in bulls**t to realize that this is weapons-grade, copper-bottomed drivel. Like pretty much every paper ever published by the climate alarmism industry, all the scary predictions are merely projections based on modeled scenarios dependent on so many dubious assumptions that their conclusions are objectively worthless.”
“Here, translated into English, is what this report is basically saying: if only we can keep global warming down to 1.5 degrees Celsius, then 150 million lives will be saved. But what, you might reasonably ask, is going to kill all these people if we don’t keep global warming down to 1.5 degrees Celsius? Well may you wonder. It’s not like carbon dioxide is a poison at current atmospheric concentrations. Even if we doubled it, it would still be considerably less than is pumped into commercial glasshouses by fruit growers…”
And so you can see why nothing coming from the Left, including this, makes any sort of sense. If the world was dying as much as they claim it is, more than 150 million people would die. If the world is really dying, we’d see actual evidence of that. If the world was getting hotter, we wouldn’t have seen a sort of extended winter going on through the first week of SPRING.
If the world was actually in danger of Climate Change, according to Bjorn’s research, there’d be nothing we could possibly do. And, if anything, that research alone should be enough evidence to show people that Climate Change is not a man-made event. If we can’t reduce the Earth’s global temperature by more than 1/20th of a degree Celsius, how could we have increased it by as much as the Left claims we have?
The Left often blames carbon-dioxide emissions for Climate Change. But that, in large, is a mostly new thing. Humanity didn’t start to emit those emissions (in large quantities) until roughly the Industrial Revolution, which increased the use of steam power, not just coal.
That happened from 1760 to, at most, 1840. And the automobile hadn’t been mass produced until 1901. It’s been a tad over a century since then, so how is it that we’ve raised the global temperatures and continue to do so as much as the Left is saying we are?
And let’s also take a look at the various ice ages that have occurred throughout Earth’s lifetime. There have been 5 major ice ages in Earth’s history: the Huronian (the earliest), Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age, and the current Quaternary glaciation (Wikipedia makes the claim that we’re in another Ice age currently because of the presence of extensive ice sheets in both poles, fitting the definition of “glaciation”). The Huronian Ice age happened around 2 billion years ago. The first humans, at least according to evolutionists’ definition for humans, didn’t come around until around 9 million years ago.
All of the Ice ages from the Huronian to the Karoo Ice age obviously occurred well before the existence of mankind. Ice ages can be considered a sort of climate change, right? So how could anyone honestly believe we have any sort of ability to affect the Earth’s climate anywhere near as much as the Left claims we do?
It defies logic and even science.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
If you were to strictly watch cable or network news, you’d believe the world is on fire. You'd believe that Mueller was this close to busting Trump. That the world is literally on fire due to Global Warming. And you'd believe every kid in America supports gun control legislation
However, reality is an entirely different story. According to a USA Today poll, of over 600 middle and high school students surveyed, 47% said they believe tightening gun laws and background checks would prevent mass shootings, while 37% disagreed. Of over 500 18-24 year olds surveyed, 54% were confident that tightened gun control measures would prevent mass shootings, while 33% disagreed.
Obviously, the advantage still swings to the ridiculous Leftist notion that more gun control means safer schools and places. However, watching cable or network news featuring the borderline (or actual) communists David Hogg (who made a gesture similar to a Nazi salute) and Emma Gonzalez (who wore a Cuban flag patch on her jacket), and watching everyone else speaking at the ironic March for our Lives event (I’ll explain why it’s ironic momentarily), you’d think that they represent a vast majority of people around their age. And while most do agree with the overall message of more gun control, not nearly as many actually do.
And no doubt, that’s something that infuriates the Left.
But that’s not all. There’s something else, something a bit more important, to be discussed here.
According to USA Today: “Seven in 10 say schools should be required to have an armed police officer on site. Six in 10 say schools should be required to have metal detectors at the door; more than two-thirds of those under 18 felt that way.”
I’m sure you can tell why that infuriates the Left, perhaps even more than the previous statistic. First, this shows that 70% of the students surveyed AGREE with Trump and CONSERVATIVES about having armed security on campus. Second, this shows that 60% want “metal detectors at the door”. Do you know what one of the biggest arguments made by the Left against this proposal is? That the school would essentially be turned into a prison or it would at least feel like a prison.
To which I say: when was the last time someone went INTO a prison and shot it up? Besides, school already feels like prison anyway for students. What’s a little added security that would actually KEEP STUDENTS SAFE?
Third, and perhaps most importantly, this shows that most students want MORE guns on campus, so long as they’re in the hands of hired and trained security whose very living depends on protecting students from potential or actual danger. In other words, these students want a GOOD GUY WITH A GUN on campus!
And if the Left hasn’t exploded in rage like the Krakatoa, they surely should by this point. That very statistic demonstrates the support of the very OPPOSITE of what the Left wants. The Left doesn’t want good guys to have guns. They want to be the only ones with the guns. Because that means they’re the only ones with all the power.
The Left doesn’t honestly care about people; they only care about themselves. The thing about school shootings, or shootings in general, is that they bring about benefits to the Left. They get an opportunity to spout nonsense about how dangerous guns are and that we need more gun control at the expense of people they don’t really care about.
They get an opportunity to indoctrinate people (particularly young people) and lie to them about who’s responsible for this. They never blame the individual. No, they blame every other registered gun owner who hasn’t broken the law. They blame an organization that protects people’s rights to the 2nd Amendment when they had nothing to do with any shootings at all.
I didn’t care to watch the March for our Lives event. But I did see some things on Twitter. Some signs blaming the NRA and have heard chants asking the NRA how many people they killed that day. Zero would be the actual number, not that any of them care or, for some, believe.
Heck, some of them think the NRA actually SELLS guns, so it’s not far-fetched for some or most of them to believe the NRA is actually responsible for the deaths of people on a daily basis.
But while the NRA’s numbers are zero, let me tell you of an organization that kills 900 people every single day, according to an annual report from 2015-16.
That organization is Planned Parenthood. No surprise there, really. And that’s why I called the March for our Lives event “ironic”. These kids march against an organization that isn’t responsible for a single death, but utterly ignore or even support an organization that kills children on a daily basis.
For every child that these indoctrinated sheep believe were killed by the NRA, a million more were actually killed by PP. According to a website called numberofabortions.com, over 60 million children have been killed since 1973, the year abortion became legal. That’s roughly 60 million more children than the NRA has killed.
That’s roughly 10 times more people who have been killed via abortion than Jews were killed during the Holocaust. That’s 10 million more people than what historians estimate Joseph Stalin killed during his reign over the Soviet Union.
Now, Planned Parenthood isn’t responsible for every single one of those abortions. And abortions occurred even before Roe v. Wade, though they were illegal. But one interesting tid bit of information for you to know (if you don’t already know) is that Planned Parenthood is not a relatively new organization. Far from it. According to Wikipedia, the organization was formed in 1916. OVER 100 YEARS AGO!
Now, I doubt they would perform abortions (or at least, they wouldn’t report it, since it would’ve been illegal at the time) before 1973. But the organization has been around for a very long time, so it’s not a far-fetched idea that, while maybe not every single one of those 60 million plus abortions were their doing, that a good percentage of them are.
If you want to find a real child-killing organization, don’t look at the NRA, because they don’t kill people. Rather, look at Planned Parenthood. They will gleefully kill your (and their own) children and celebrate it in massive events.
Regardless, that’s really getting off topic. While I believe all of that was necessary to mention, I’ll return to the main point of the article. Given those statistics by USA Today of all places, we can see that the Left’s efforts to indoctrinate our children aren’t working as much as they would hope. If they could have their way, they would have the number of children who believe in gun control to be at 100%. And while the majority has been successfully brainwashed to not believe in facts, there’s a very surprising amount of middle and high school-aged people that refuse to believe the Left’s lies, even going as far as to believe that a good guy with a gun would be a good and safe option for them.
So that’s something to celebrate, if nothing else. It gives you some realistic hope that, while the future will likely be plagued by open-communists, there will be a decent amount of people who will fight back against that communism.
And yes, I know that that poll only talks about gun control measures and armed security on campus, but they’re indicative of potential conservatism for the future. If they’re unwilling to believe the Left when it comes to this, surely they’d be unwilling to believe the Left in other matters, even if at the moment, they are a bit liberal-leaning in those other matters.
Heck, even I used to be a good deal more liberal when I was in high school compared to now.
“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.”
I’ve often times said that the Left is simply no fun. They are utterly incapable of taking a joke for what it is, but this goes a step even beyond that. This is flat out dumb, and you’ll see why right here.
Recently, Rolling Stone published an article with one of the most ridiculous headlines I’ve ever seen, and that’s honestly saying something.
The title: “Video Games Are ’90 times’ More Violent Than Actual War, Here’s How To Change That”.
I’m honestly stupefied by that title. And so was this Twitter user: “Actually, Rolling Stone, I crunched the numbers. Turns out video games are 0% as violent as ‘actual war.’”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. How could you possibly think that a VIDEO GAME is more violent than ACTUAL WAR?!
Rolling Stone eventually changed the title to this: “GDC Panel: Video Games Depictions’ ’90 Times’ More Violent Than Actual War.” Which is interesting because it changes literally nothing about how stupid that title is.
The article was about a man named Andrew Barron, who is the director of design for Bohemia Interactive Simulations, and who served in Afghanistan in 2010 for 7 months.
Barron said: “In general, I’d say people have a deep appreciation for the military, but a very shallow understanding of what the military does and war itself.”
According to the Daily Wire, Barron “asserted that video games that focused on combat, excluding the routine jobs the military undertakes, are similar to writing a movie about relationships solely about sex. He said that focusing on ‘hero s**t’ ignores the routine jobs of the military involving ‘hundreds of tasks – not just shooting.’ Thus he posited that games about war need ‘less killing… more war,’ adding, ‘I think in general, video games are much, much more violent than military operations or military simulations. And I mean, orders of magnitudes more violent.’”
Barron also mentioned that a typical scenario in a war video game depicts a lone soldier wiping out entire groups of enemies, and saying that in a real-life scenario, the military uses three times the number of attackers.
Ok, knowing all of this, it’s clear to me that I need to make a distinction on what constitutes violence in this case.
When Barron mentions games like these, I think of games like the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises (of which I’ve played both extensively). And he does make one important point: it’s all “hero s**t”. In the single player mode of the games, you, as the main character, wipe out entire battlefields of enemies, moving from one level to another. In that regard, of course it’s more violent than real life. All you’re doing is wiping out entire battalions of enemies, which is not something that anyone in real life ever does.
But in a more real sense, it’s illogical to say that video games such as that are more violent than real life. Why? Because games are nothing more than a simulation; nothing more than 1’s and 0’s. The enemies we wipe out are nothing more than AI; nothing more than pixels. It’s as violent as reading a book about a fictional war, particularly since most games today focus on entirely fictional wars.
Early Call of Duty games were WWII shooters. Then, they moved on to modern warfare (literally, with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare), which depicted a war more similar to the one in Afghanistan. But even then, the game developers take some serious liberties with what they actually have you doing.
The stories don’t really mimic real life that much. For example, the very game I mentioned in the paragraph above has the players fighting Russian enemies. Its sequels, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3, go further with that fictional conflict with the Russians, at one point having Russia invading the U.S. and depicting soldiers fighting in urban and suburban areas to defend the homeland.
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (not related to the Modern Warfare series) starts with the U.S. military fighting a North Korean invasion of Seoul.
What I’m trying to say is that these games are nothing more than simulations and “what ifs” that take extreme liberties with their plots. Yes, it’s mostly the fighting aspect of war. Of course it is! It’s the most heart-racing part of being in a war! It’s the most VIOLENT part of being in a war!
But you can’t credibly say that any of the games I’ve mentioned above are more violent than an actual war. Video games like these offer blood and gore that is entirely designed by a developer. I’d be more psychologically wounded by killing a person in real life than killing a person in a video game. As I said, I’ve played Call of Duty and Battlefield a whole lot. I’ve racked up tens of thousands of kills in each, as well as tens of thousands of deaths on each.
I’ve called in airstrikes, attack helicopters, AC130s, attack dogs and tactical nukes on my opponents plenty of times. But none of them could possibly be considered as being more violent than a real war.
Why? Because there’s a clear suspension of reality in a video game. Soldiers aren’t afforded that luxury in a war. Everything is real to them. Some of them suffer from PTSD as a result of traumatic experiences in war. Not a single person that plays Call of Duty claims they got PTSD from anything that happens there.
Yes, there’s more to war than just shooting. But there’s also more to video games than shooting as well. While I can’t say that’s the case for Call of Duty or Battlefield, there are military simulation video games like the Arma series that aren’t about full-on combat 24/7. No, it doesn’t fully simulate what being in war is like in terms of the tasks, but you spend a good amount of the game planning things like raids, assaults and other things and then getting to the actual shooting.
But you can’t credibly say that video games are more violent than real war just because video games focus on the more violent parts of war. Nothing you do in a video game could possibly prepare you for what you would have to do in real life. You can’t get used to the trauma and violence of actual war by constantly playing a video game.
And that’s my biggest argument against that claim. If video games were really more violent than war, soldiers would be far more prepared for war (in the beginning, that is) than they actually are.
Now, that being said, I’ve never been to war myself. I’m speaking strictly with the mindset of “what makes the most sense”. I’m looking at things through logical means and speaking in that manner, having no experience in actual combat.
But I do have experience in video game combat, and let me tell you, I could not possibly do what our brave men and women do every single day. I’ve put up countless numbers of kills in games but I don’t think I have the mettle to actually end the life of another human being. With as much hate as I have for ISIS, Al-Qaeda and terrorists, I don’t think I could possibly bear to actually, physically and through my own means take the life of another person unless it was absolutely necessary to protect me, my friends or my family.
Taking the life of a pixel is easy. Taking the life of another person, despite how evil and repugnant they are, is not.
I’ve read a book by Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and his life as a SEAL sniper. I mention this because I remember one particular part of the book where he detailed what it felt like when he had to kill a Muslim woman who had a grenade in hand and was going to kill his comrades. About how he felt having to take her out, knowing that she was forced by cowardly terrorists to sacrifice her own life for their horrendous cause.
About how it felt to pull the trigger and see the woman lying dead because of him.
In a video game, such a task is easy. Wait for the cut-scene to end, man the sniper and take the shot, no questions asked. But I can’t imagine exactly how such an act feels, whether it’s doing it with a sniper, an assault rifle, a pistol or what have you.
Real war is far more violent than video games, and there’s no real argument against that. I can’t imagine what it’d be like to go through war. I played a game that was set during the Vietnam War, but I couldn’t possibly imagine what it’d be like to actually be there.
When a soldier dies in real life, we weep. When a soldier dies in a video game, we blame “bad internet connections”.
We salute and offer respect to those who have gone to war. We don’t salute and offer respect to those who reached the max level in a war video game.
1 Thessalonians 5:18
“Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”
On Friday, President Donald Trump signed the Omnibus bill, effectively funding Planned Parenthood, Sanctuary Cities, Chuck Schumer’s insanely expensive pet-project and a myriad of other things.
However, there is one outlying thing that was in that bill that is what Trump wants and that’s military funding. Such a thing is always welcomed, but did Trump give up too much in exchange for this?
Just as a reminder, here are just some of the things that this steaming-pile-of-turd-lawmakers-are-calling-a-bill effectively does:
Of course, there’s more to it than just what I’ve mentioned. The bill is over 2000 pages long and there’s a whole lot to cover, so I can’t get to absolutely everything, but these are some of the more important parts.
Now, almost every single one of these things in this omnibus bill go against the very idea of Making America Great Again.
Funding Planned Parenthood is horrendous. It’s horrible that we continue to provide funding for an organization that commits one of the most horrendous atrocities in human history on a daily basis.
We are also providing funding for Sanctuary cities, which goes against the biggest reason people voted for Trump: illegal immigration.
The funding of sanctuary cities places illegals ahead of Americans, which is the polar opposite of what Trump ran on, so it’s understandable if Trump supporters are ticked off at him over this.
Chuck Schumer’s pet project, the Gateway Bridge, is not something that should cost a tenth of what we’ll be giving the military.
“Fixing” the FBI’s background check system only works if every state gives the correct information about registered owners to the FBI. Some recent shootings occurred partly because the FBI did not get the correct information, or any at all, about the specific shooter. As with abortion, some states don’t give necessary information to federal authorities.
Ensuring that we “secure U.S. elections from Russia” stems strictly on the idiotic and false belief that Trump colluded with Russia to beat Hillary. Would that statute have even gotten into the bill if Hillary had won? Yes, it’s part of national security, but it’s borne of malicious intent and a ridiculous notion that Trump had to cheat to win.
33 miles of secondary fencing isn’t nearly enough for the 700 mile border across the south, but this is honestly more than we have gotten from Democrats when it comes to border security to this point. While this isn’t even close to being the wall we were promised, we have to realize that not a single Democrat and Establishment Republican wants a wall. THEY are the ones standing in the way of the MAGA agenda.
Finally, $300 billion for military spending, which is great, but did we give up far too much just for that? Well, let’s not belittle how important funding our military truly is. If you saw the press conference when Trump announced he’d sign the bill, you’ll know that he made this whole thing about military spending and the importance of it.
If you saw the press conference, you saw that he mentioned that for the past few years (all thanks to Obama), we have had serious cuts to our military and defense. He mentioned that his job is to “keep America safe… nothing more important.”
He mentioned that, as a matter of national security, he signed the omnibus bill and immediately followed by saying: “there are a lot of things that I’m unhappy about in this bill,” but that if we wanted to rebuild our military, we were forced to have.
He then said: “I will never sign another bill like this again.”
Now, here’s the mindset I think Trump had: he felt he had no other choice, if he wanted to make our military stronger, than to sign this bill that he knows is terrible.
That, in essence, he was backed into a corner and had no other option than to sign this bill. Now, I know that he had the power to veto and, in my opinion, that’s likely what he should’ve done. Veto the bill, send it back to Congress to override it but put the entire blame on them for this.
But maybe he felt that this was going to be the best deal he would get to benefit our military. I don’t know. But something in his gut told him that he should sign this bill.
One thing that I’m clinging to to be true is this argument I’ve seen countless times on social media. Here’re the most important parts: “The Omnibus… [is] not an official ‘Federal Budget’… Congress basically screwed themselves by not passing a Budget… Per the Constitution… the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein. This is another one of those big Porkulus Bills, like they gave Obama for 8 years… An Omnibus Spending Bill may have some ‘instructions’ as to how the money will be spent… Obama ignored them. He spent the money, or didn’t spend it, however he wanted to… like Obama, Pres Trump can spend this money on whatever he wants to. Or… not spend it. Planned Parenthood? What if our President decided to tell the Treas. Department to ‘slow-walk’ that money to Planned Parenthood… until the Senate gets off their ass and confirms his appointees? Sanctuary Cities? What if our President decided to ‘slow-walk’ that money too… until those Sanctuary Cities assist ICE in rounding up criminal illegal aliens?...”
And so on. Now, I don’t know if that’s all true. These are the words of someone on the internet and a lot of people are sharing this, but that doesn’t make it true. However, I do know that the President does have spending power (as evidenced by 8 years of Obama). If the comment above is correct, he could well use this to his advantage.
I believe him when he said that there are a lot of things in the bill that he’s unhappy about. I’m not about to throw him under the bus just because he signed what he felt was the best deal he would get out of the snakes that call themselves Republicans.
The military had to be funded and I doubt he wanted to risk losing that in exchange for nothing. I’m not about to simply give up on him and give up this country to the rotten Washington Establishment that put him between a rock and a hard place. This was a bill that was horrible for Americans, and we all knew that, including the Republican Establishment, who were all too happy to deliver this Christmas gift to the Democrats.
Trust me, I don’t like this bill any more than you or Trump does. I don’t know if this will come back to bite the Establishment in the butt as the aforementioned comment suggests and I don’t know if military funding will outweigh everything else that the Democrats and the Swamp get here. But what I do know is that, under the right Congress, we will never have to be in such a dark place again.
We have invested far too much in Trump and the Make America Great Again movement for this one thing to keep us from continuing our support for one of the greatest Presidents we’ve seen in a long time. I don’t know if signing this bill was a mistake. I think it was, but even then, I’m not willing to throw Trump under the bus for this. He did what he felt he had to do and I hope he prayed to God for guidance here.
And I hope he prays for continued guidance as we move along. If he indeed does have the power that the aforementioned comment says he does, then this has at least some potential to be a blessing in disguise. I hate the idea of funding the baby killers. I hate the idea of funding the Sanctuary Cities and I hate the fact that this is one of the most expensive bills we’ve seen in recent time.
But there’s a reason for everything. Personally, I’ve seen more Trump supporters who will still back him despite this, understanding that he didn’t want to sign this bill and that the Establishment essentially has forced him to do it than I’ve seen Trump supporters be incessantly angry with him over this, thinking this is the beginning of the end of the Trump administration.
Whether this will mark the beginning of the end of Trump will remain to be seen. But either way, we should have faith in God that there’s something great waiting for us. We should pray that this isn’t the end of Trump’s administration, but have faith that there will never be an end of GOD’s administration.
The Swamp may have gotten what they wanted with this, but I refuse to lay down and surrender to them. Trump’s very election indicates that the Establishment can be defeated (since he beat Hillary who cheated in the election and still lost). What we need to ensure is that no Establishment Republican ever wins anything of significance again. I single out Republicans because there will always be Democrats in Congress. California alone guarantees that.
What I’m trying to say is that, while the Swamp may have won the battle, they haven’t won the war.
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
For the next few of paragraphs, I’ll likely be venting some frustration that comes with this bit of news, so please excuse me if I ramble a tad. I’ll still try to stay focused on the overall message, but I’ll likely rant a bit as well.
First, I just want to say that it’s days like these that I truly HATE the Republican Party. But I should probably clarify what I mean by that. It’s not the Party itself that I hate, despite what the previous sentence says. It’s the so-called “leadership” that is at the helm of it. Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, Loser Mitt Romney, Future ex-Senator Jeff Snowflake.
These are merely some of the people that constantly get in the way of the MAGA movement. These are some of the people that are Democrats in disguise. Not a single one of them is a conservative. There’s nothing for which I could possibly defend any single one of them. I would say that I’m thankful for McCain’s service as a member of the military, but his actions as a Senator, particularly as of late, have branded him a traitor to the United States of America in my eyes.
He may be considered a military hero, but in reality he’s nothing more than a socialist in disguise. Either that or he’s simply a gutless fool. He’s shown to be either a massive coward as a Senator or a massive and willing traitor to every-day Americans.
But stepping a bit backwards and looking at his RINO comrades, this omnibus deal just proves that Democrats are still in control. As of the time of writing this article, the bill hasn’t yet passed the Senate, but we all know that it will. This is a deal that heavily favors Democrats.
Just to name a few things in this over 2000 page bill (which was given less than 36 hours to be voted on in the Senate), this bill includes funding for Planned Parenthood, funding for Sanctuary Cities, funding for the New York Gateway Bridge project (which is mostly a matter of how much money this project is getting. By the way, it’s $30 BILLION!), and this entire bill will drive the deficit up by $1 TRILLION IN THE NEXT YEAR ALONE! It will include stricter background checks for gun purchases with the “Fix NICS” (the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System) bill without a gun-friendly state reciprocity bill attached to it, no bailout for Obamacare and dumping $687 million on securing U.S. elections against Russians.
But you have to think: “There’s no way that Democrats would get so much without Republicans getting something in return!” Oh, they get something, alright. They get a whole 33 miles of fencing along the 700 mile southern border! Whoopee! This new, fancy fence will likely stop one small child from illegally entering the country! And at the low, low cost of $641 million! Notice how we get less money to secure the border (and this money doesn’t cover hiring more patrol agents) than we get to further “secure U.S. elections against Russians”.
Aside from that pathetic excuse for border security, we also get $300 billion to increase domestic and military spending, with an additional $90 billion in disaster aid for states affected by last year’s hurricanes and $140 billion for emergency military funds. Now, that’s not too bad, it is an increase in our military and defense spending, but we give up far too much to make this worthwhile.
The only other thing that we “get” is no actual resolution on DACA, but that will likely be put in a bill in the future that may be like this one. It seems the Democrats have figured out a way to get their way in a Trump administration: omnibus bills that has them surrendering little while gaining a lot.
And the Republicans, at least the RINOs, are more than ok with all of this, considering that it’s already passed the House and will most certainly pass the Senate. This is a horrible deal in almost every way that you look at it.
Economically? This is a bill that will drive us over a trillion dollars further into debt in the next year alone.
Morally? The very continued funding of the world’s largest child-killing organization tugs at the heart strings of every morally-conscious American.
Security? Sure, we get more money for the military, which we really need, but we get peanuts in terms of securing our border.
Illegal immigration from the southern border will almost entirely cease with a cement wall. A fence does next to nothing in the way of keeping illegals out of the country. And we don’t get provisions to hire more border agents.
As Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said: “We got about 80% of what we were trying to get…”
Now, tell me. How could it possibly be that Democrats get 80% of what they want in a House of Representatives ruled by Republicans, a Senate ruled by Republicans, if even slightly, and a White House led by a Republican?
THAT SHOULD NEVER BE THE CASE EVER!
And what was the excuse we would constantly get from Republicans? “We don’t have the House!” And so, we gave them the House. “We don’t have the Senate!” And so, we gave them the Senate. “We don’t have the White House!” And so, we gave them the White House. What’s their new excuse? “We don’t have 60 votes!”
60 VOTES ARE ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT IN THIS CASE! The Constitution mentions a 60-vote supermajority. But that supermajority is only necessary in specific cases, such as ratification of treaties, conviction of a President in an impeachment trial, overriding presidential vetoes, approving constitutional amendments, and barring a disabled President from regaining power if the President objects to staying on the sidelines.
Nowhere does it mention that a ruling party has to have 60 votes to do smaller things. If it did, less than nothing would ever get done in Congress and there’d be no point in even having a Congress.
Republicans only need a majority, which they have, in order to pass things. The problem is that they seldom often USE IT! They used it for the tax cuts, and that was great. In fact, because it was so great and it yielded great results, the GOP should see that what they want can easily pass Congress if they stop betraying each other.
Of course, that’s not going to happen. These RINOs are evil, not stupid. They understand perfectly that, with the power they have, they are able to pass everything Republicans have been wanting for decades. They could fully repeal Obamacare and watch as Democrats cry in the corner. They could defund Planned Parenthood and save millions upon millions of babies. They could alleviate much of the nonsensical gun control legislation already in place and make people safer. They could fully fund Trump’s wall by just cutting funding to Sanctuary Cities alone.
They could fully fund Trump’s wall and make it 100 feet high with Star Wars drones guarding it by just defunding Planned Parenthood (I exaggerate, of course).
They have the power to pass every little thing they were initially SENT THERE TO DO! But frankly, we’re merely lucky tax cuts passed. Who knows when will be the next time that every single Republican in Congress will agree on something.
The GOP Establishment has turned heel (wrestling term meaning betrayal). They are backstabbing the American people with the passage of this bill. And I even question whether Trump will even veto it (I know that Budget Director Mick Mulvaney has said Trump will sign it, but I’m still not 100% convinced unless he actually does it). He likes the fact that we get more military spending, but he should be smart enough to realize a bad deal when he sees one. HE WROTE A WHOLE BOOK AROUND THAT TOPIC!
He should see just how disgustingly bad this bill is. He should see just how spineless the GOP is in passing things that Democrats want.
I hope he vetoes this horrendous bill. The very passage of this bill already helps Republicans lose seats in Congress, and I believe that’s precisely what they want. They don’t want Trump as President any more than Democrats do, but they couldn’t possibly write up articles of impeachment based on nothing. That’s a job they want to leave to their Democrat buddies.
They understand that if they were to impeach a Republican President, they’d leave next to no reason for people to vote Republican ever again. They want to win, but not with people like Trump.
And Trump should have realized this for a long time now. He has no friends within the Establishment, only enemies. RINOs will never fully support him and his agenda. They despise him and his efforts. This bill should offer enough proof of that statement’s validity.
It’s clear to me that the very people we voted for to represent us have betrayed us. This is not a sudden realization. I’ve known this for some time. But it’s days like these that remind me of that sort of betrayal. We didn’t vote for Republicans so that they would PASS 80% OF THE THINGS DEMOCRATS WANT!
We voted for them to do THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT!
Now, I’ve come to an actually recent realization. There’s no sense in badmouthing the Party itself. There’s no sense in not calling myself a Republican. Why? Because it’s not the Party that has betrayed us, it’s the leadership. The Party is nothing more than a name and a cause, founded by Abraham Lincoln. We represent our Republic. We fight for it. The Party is worth defending. Its leadership is not.
So rather than attack the Party itself, I’ll simply attack the ones in power. The very people I’ve named above and those who stand by them. They are our enemies as well. It’s not just the Democrat Party that is our enemy. It’s the leadership in the GOP as well.
We need to drain the swamp completely. Not a shred of it can be allowed to remain. We must never vote for another establishment candidate again. That’s not to say that we should allow Democrats to win, either.
We should stick to voting for our beliefs, not our parties. If a Republican candidate like Romney comes along, we should not vote for them. Back in 2012, I was angry with the roughly 3 million Republicans (I think that was the number) that didn’t vote for him. Today, I’m so glad they didn’t elect Romney, because despite the fact that it meant 4 more years of Obama, it also meant 4 to 8 years of Trump.
That whole ordeal taught me something: to be patient for God. He was not surprised Romney lost. He was not surprised that Obama won. But He didn’t relinquish any of His power when Obama won. Obama was allowed to do only what God allowed him to do. And God didn’t allow Hillary to continue doing what Obama was doing.
What I’m trying to say, politically, is that we should refrain from strictly voting for someone just because of their Party affiliation. Now, saying that, I also have to emphasize the importance of keeping a Republican majority in Congress. I know that this sounds contradictory to my overall message, but here’s my reasoning: I’d rather be insanely angry with the Republican hacks that are betraying us if it means that Trump doesn’t get impeached.
The GOP will never impeach their own Republican President just because they don’t like him. They need a legitimate reason. The Democrats don’t. They’ll write articles of impeachment the day they get back to work in Congress if they get the majority.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we should try to do both things here. We should vote for someone who aligns with our beliefs while also trying to keep Democrats and RINOs at bay. This may seem like an unsurmountable task. It’s rather complicated and difficult to pull off. You need the right candidate in the right area to do that. I doubt California will be the place where a true conservative candidate would flourish. But even if one doesn’t, we shouldn’t despair if a RINO or a Democrat wins.
We have seen what God can do for us in our lives. He let Obama win twice so that we would have Trump, possibly for 8 years. But even if we don’t get Trump for 8 years, or even if we don’t get him for 4 and he’s impeached, we still shouldn’t despair.
And even if the Democrats get absolutely everything: White House, Congress and Supreme Court, we still shouldn’t despair. And even if the Democrats turn the U.S. into Soviet Russia, ruling in full-on communism, we still shouldn’t despair.
Why? Because no power on Earth is strong enough to hold a candle to God.
The whole world may turn to Globalism (global communism), but there’s not a reason on Earth that Christ’s followers should despair. This is the mortal world, after all. It’s merely temporary. The world, under Globalism, would be dark for sure. But it would still God’s to control. And God’s to decide when enough is enough.
I don’t know when that will all happen. I would hope not within our lifetime, or our children’s lifetimes. But regardless on when it happens (if at all), we should not feel despair. We should not feel hopeless. We should trust in God’s plan and His will. He knows when and how everything will end. He knows that His children will be spared from the lake of fire and sulfur. He knows that when His children suffer on Earth, He will restore and appease them in Heaven.
Now, I’m not saying all of this to frighten you. On the contrary, this should make you feel hopeful for the future. Maybe not for the future of the country or for the world, but future for yourself and your fellow Christians. There’s not a single thing that the Devil can do to harm you on Earth or in Heaven if you keep your faith and trust in Christ.
You may see and feel struggles in the horizon. You may feel saddened if Democrats win and impeach Trump. But you should remember that it’s not them who have the final say. The one who has the final say is the one who had the initial say.
This article is running a little long. Currently well over 2000 words. So I’ll simply end with this: there’s a reason for everything, even for darkness. For in the darkness is where we can find the Light most easily.
“Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”
I’ve known for a long time now that Europe is, in many ways, a “s**thole”. Part of the reason is due to the huge increases in the amount of “Syrian refugees” that are literally invading Europe. But another part is the fact that you don’t really enjoy the same sort of freedom and liberty that you enjoy in the States.
This has been true since the very founding of our nation, but it’s especially important to mention in this case. What am I talking about? Well, if you’ve been following some news sources, you’ll know that a man in the U.K. faces prison time due to a video he posted that was deemed “Grossly Offensive”. And yes, that’s the actual charge, which is why I’ve capitalized it.
According to the Daily Wire: “A Glasgow Sheriff Court on Tuesday found Scottish YouTube personality Count Dankula – real name Mark Meechan – guilty of being “grossly offensive,” which was explicitly banned in Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act.”
“Meechan was arrested in April 2016 for allegedly committing a hate crime by sharing a short video on YouTube. The video showed him teaching his girlfriend’s dog to give a Nazi ‘Sieg Heil salute,’ and showed the pug named Buddha responding excitedly to the phrase ‘gas the Jews.’”
According to Meechan, he said he had taught the dog to do the Nazi salute as “a joke intended to upset his girlfriend,” and the video was just meant to be seen by a few of his friends, but the video was ultimately shared on Reddit and its popularity exploded.
Now, this is a very stupid and offensive joke for sure, but it’s not something to imprison someone over. This isn’t an act that harmed someone else, physically or otherwise; not something that would harm him physically or otherwise (except get his girlfriend mad at him, which was the intention of the joke anyway); and this doesn’t harm the system of government or violate anyone else’s rights.
All this is is a dumb and offensive joke that harms literally no one. I can see why this would offend people, particularly Jewish people. But that’s the worst thing that the video does. He doesn’t show himself actually gassing a Jewish person or causing someone else harm. Frankly, the T.V. show “South Park” regularly does more to offend the Jewish community (although they offend just about everyone, including the Left) than this guy did.
And this is not the only time someone was arrested and sent to jail for being “offensive” in the U.K. Back in 2016, a man was imprisoned after leaving bacon sandwiches outside a mosque and was sentenced to 12 months in prison, where he was eventually stabbed to death, according to the Daily Wire.
That guy was just playing a joke at Muslims’ expense and paid dearly for it. He was sent to jail and murdered there, when he shouldn’t have been. An offensive joke as well, but not something to arrest someone for, and in this particular case, it cost someone their life.
And considering the huge rises in rape, stabbings and general actual crimes that have been happening in the U.K., you’d think they’d give a bit more of a darn about that than the “mean things” people say on the internet or the offensive jokes they play at a group of people’s expense.
Returning to Meechan’s case, his girlfriend gives us more context on the very dog in the video: “He will lift his paw to virtually anything if he gets a treat for it. We have taught him to lift his paw to food, like ham or cheese.” So the dog will lift his paw, or “give the Nazi salute”, if you will, to anything as long as it gets him a treat. Meechan’s girlfriend also gives us more context on Meechan himself, saying he never had “expressed anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic” views and has “always been very supportive towards minority groups.”
So someone who doesn’t actually have Nazi beliefs was arrested for joking about it. That’d be another way to put this whole thing.
Meechan himself even said: “I don’t actually hate Jewish people and the video was just an insight into the darker side of my humour, a prank to annoy my girlfriend and that I did not intend for people, other than people who knew my comedy, to see the video.”
This has gotten so much attention that even comedian Ricky Gervais came to Meechan’s defense: “A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed ‘grossly offensive’. If you don’t believe in a person’s right to say things that you might find ‘grossly offensive’, then you don’t believe in Freedom of Speech.”
And he makes a good point. I’m not a comedian, but I find that comedy tends to be unfunny and bland when it’s entrenched in political correctness. Political correctness utterly destroys people’s ability to be funny. Some of the funniest comedy is when someone, either an individual or a group of people, are being made fun of. And even the Left should know, given how often times they make jokes that are strictly aimed at conservatives’ expense.
Now, as a conservative, I couldn’t care less about those jokes. I don’t get easily offended. Insult me, that’s fine. Insult Trump, that’s fine. I’ll challenge your very reasoning, but I won’t get offended. Insult my conservative beliefs and I’ll merely roll my eyes at your ignorance.
The only thing that I would legitimately get offended by is any insult to my Christianity, much as when Joy Behar attacked Mike Pence’s Christian belief, effectively offending the roughly 2 billion Christians on Earth. Granted, I mostly rolled my eyes to her comments as well, but I did still find them offensive. I also sort of found it offensive that it took her about a month to apologize for it.
But overall, I don’t really find many things that offend me. And in the case of Meechan, no one should honestly find it too offensive either. It was just a stupid joke meant to annoy his girlfriend.
And with the U.K.’s response to the video, they’ve acted far more like Nazis themselves than Meechan has. That’s what true Fascism looks like, liberals. Arresting and convicting someone for doing something stupid but harmless. Imprisoning someone just for making a joke. In effect, convicting someone who simply MIGHT have a different opinion (although in this case, Meechan isn’t actually a Nazi). They may not necessarily be quite at that level, but this is a step too close to that.
I thought Winston Churchill helped defeat the Nazis. Looks like some of them infiltrated the U.K. government (and, frankly, the U.S. as well).
“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions.”
Recently, another high school, this time in Maryland, was in lockdown due to a student shooter (whose name will be entirely omitted as to not unintentionally glorify him). But this particular shooting is quite different from the one in Parkland, Florida.
First, this doesn’t look like it was an intended killing spree. According to TownHall.com, “officials are telling the media that the male assailant targeted a specific female victim”. If this is the case, then one can assume this must’ve been some sort of vendetta shooting, perhaps. The specific reason as to why the shooting occurred isn’t very important, but the intention is noteworthy. The Parkland shooting was not a targeted killing. It was just a shooting spree by a mad man who could’ve been stopped had the sheriff’s county and other authority figures not been grossly incompetent or negligent at their jobs.
And that last little bit will be important in one moment.
Second, the shooting occurred with a handgun, not an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic rifle. This further cements the belief that this was a targeted shooting and not a killing spree.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the shooter was stopped by a school resource officer who engaged the shooter before the shooter could do any more damage to anyone else.
One particular student called CNN during the lockdown, saying: “I’m still a little shaken up… I didn’t really expect for this to happen. I do always feel safe, though, because they always have police at the school.”
And that last part is truly important. This particular student, who could’ve been a potential victim had the shooter’s intentions been similar to the Parkland shooter’s, is confident that he would be safe because of the fact that A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IS ALWAYS THERE!
Now, given that this was most likely a targeted shooting, other students in the school likely would not have been targets, but you never know. With different intentions, the shooter could’ve decided to go on a massive killing spree. And who knows if he only meant to kill one target? Who’s to say that he wouldn’t have gone somewhere else to kill someone else who might’ve wronged him or who simply ticked him off enough to kill them? Who’s to say that this could not have been a worse scenario?
Not to mention that, as of the time of writing this article, the female student target is in critical condition. A bad scenario, but far better than being dead. Who’s to say that the shooter, if he hadn’t been stopped (and killed) by the resource officer, wouldn’t have continued firing at the female student to ensure her death?
Again, this likely was a targeted shooting. Killers, when targeting a specific person, usually ensure that that person is dead. I don’t know the entire timeline of the situation. I don’t know exactly where everything took place. I don’t know where everyone was at any specific point in time. What I do know is that this had the potential to be a far worse case had the school not had a resource officer ready to engage the threat.
As of now, the only person known to be dead is the shooter. If the intentions had been different, it’s possible that things would’ve been far worse with far more people clinging on to life. But because this particular school always has someone on standby, more lives are almost guaranteed to be saved in such a horrific case as a school shooting.
The Left may believe that taking away the guns is an answer, but it’s far from it. Taking away people’s guns leaves them far more vulnerable. You can’t effectively take away every single person’s guns. Not to mention that criminals don’t usually abide by the law. A law that outlaws guns isn’t going to make a darn little difference to a criminal who intends to hurt people.
Bad people will always figure out how to get guns. There’s such a thing as the black market, you know? And with the gun-running happening at the southern border (which would be largely halted if we had a wall there), illegal guns will always be likely to be introduced into the country even if you were to take every single gun, legal or illegal, in the country and destroyed them (which is also impossible).
Not to mention that you may be able to take away the tool by which these criminals will commit crimes, but you can’t take away the evil in their hearts; certainly not with legislation.
It’s already illegal to kill another human being, but people still do it.
The next shooter is already out there, already with his weapon of choice and already has his target in sight. No gun control law will keep him from committing the evil acts he will commit. The only thing that will actually and EFFECTIVELY stop him will be a good guy with a gun wherever he intends to attack.
In a school, much like the one in Maryland, there could (and should) be a resource officer ready, WILLING and able to do the job he gets paid to do.
In a church, we’ve already seen a case where a nearby neighbor engaged the shooter with his own rifle. But the case can be made for someone inside the church being armed themselves and willing and able to engage the shooter themselves in order to protect their family or their fellow followers of Christ.
In a movie theater, the same case can be made for someone who is armed themselves and willing and able to protect themselves and those around him in the case of a shooter.
If you took every single mass shooting (perhaps with the exception of the one in Las Vegas, due to the shooter’s location), it’s entirely reasonable to believe that they could’ve all been stopped or at least far less deadly if there had been people there with guns of their own and who knew very well how to fire back effectively.
Taking away people’s guns and antagonizing guns doesn’t take away the bad people’s intentions or evil hearts. It takes away people’s ability to defend themselves and their loved ones. Gun control doesn’t make anyone safer, except the shooter. Bad people, killers, shooters are the only ones who benefit from gun control legislation. They likely already have their guns. And they’re not going to look for a challenge. They’ll be looking for easy targets.
How often do armed criminals attack police stations? Or gun ranges? Or gun stores? They’re not going to go where there are certainly going to be people who will effectively engage them and be difficult to kill. The reason we have as many school shootings, church shootings, mall shootings, etc. (which CNN claims there have been 17 school shootings according to their own research, so you know what the likelihood of that being fake news is) is because they are all typically easy targets.
Schools, aside from those like the one in Maryland, are typically gun-free zones where no one, even the security there, have weapons. This makes them easy targets, and thus, this results in the kind of tragedy we witnessed in Florida.
Malls are typically the same story. While they are a bit more likely to have armed security (at least police), malls are typically rather large and have a lot of people, depending on the day and the time of day. A shooter would be satisfied with killing as many people as he could, particularly if that number is decently high, even if they are eventually engaged by police and are shot to death.
And churches are usually without armed security as well. Although the likelihood of an armed worshipper being there is relatively high (since most Christians are conservatives), the focus will usually be in worshipping the Lord through prayer or listening to the pastor. And churches are usually not very large, so a shooter can go in and out rather quickly.
And it’s for that very reason that it’s absolutely imperative that people arm themselves and learn how to fire their weapon effectively. Churches don’t usually make enough money to hire armed guards. In fact, the very people working there usually do it for free out of service to the church. It’s for that reason that people should be able to have weapons and learn how to effectively engage and end any threat.
Regardless, returning to the Maryland high school, we should pray for the female student’s safety and recovery. And once the tension has been lowered, this should serve as a teachable moment as to how to effectively protect our schools and our children.
This should serve as an example of how a good guy with a gun (who has the guts to engage the threat, unlike the Broward Sheriff’s office) is the most effective way to defeat and maybe even discern any threats. A good guy with a gun likely saved the female student’s life. A good guy with a gun (and with guts) could’ve saved most, if not all of the victims in Parkland.
No legislation will ever take away the evil in bad people’s hearts. But legislation can take away the safety in innocent people’s hearts.
“The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in Him.”
While you can clearly conclude that I believe the Deep State is very much real, it’s pretty great and astonishing to see that a majority of Americans (or at least people in the country) believe that the Deep State exists or that there’s a good chance it does.
Monmouth released a poll on Monday, March 19, 2018, and Politico reported on it. “Of the 803 adults polled, 27 percent said they believe the unelected group known as the deep state definitely exists. An additional 47 percent said it probably exists. Sixteen percent said it probably does not exist and 5 percent said they believe it definitely does not exist,” reads the Politico article.
Given the mountain of evidence piled to suggest and conclude that the Deep State does indeed exist (i.e. the Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts, the Clinton campaign’s contribution to the Steele dossier and the multitude of people involved in the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page just to name a few), I would only hope that a majority of people would be able to recognize the facts, even when the MSM tries to bury those stories or tries to discredit them.
This very poll, which has “a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points,” according to Politico, shows that the majority of the country does not buy into the idea that Trump is just some crazy conspiracy theorist who is paranoid that someone is out to get him. The majority of the country believes that there ARE people who are out to get the President, or at least undermine his administration.
But wait, there’s more. According to Politico: “Republicans and independents were more likely to respond that they believe in the existence of the deep state, with 31 percent and 33 percent respectively. Only 19 percent of Democrats said the deep state definitely exists.”
Let’s focus on that last statistic. 19% of Democrats said the Deep State definitely exists? That may not seem like an awful lot, but it’s actually a lot more significant than you may believe. That’s, honestly, a bigger number than you would think if you were to only watch the Fake News media. A fifth of the Democrats polled believe the deep state definitely exists. THAT’S HUGE AND VERY SIGNIFICANT!
Granted, I would hope that, as time goes on and more evidence comes to light to show that the deep state is very much real and is trying to undermine and take down a duly-elected President, that number would rise. But as it is, that number is a pretty good start.
But the poll doesn’t end there. It also talks about the government spying on American citizens. “Approximately 80 percent of those polled also indicated they believe the U.S. government is monitoring or spying on the actives of American citizens. Fifty-three percent said they believe the activity is widespread, and 29 percent said the monitoring is happening, but not widespread. Only 14 percent said they believe there is no monitoring happening at all,” according to Politico.
It goes further in this particular discussion: “Few respondents, or 18 percent, said they believe government monitoring is usually justified. Fifty-three percent, however, said that government is only sometimes justified and an additional 28 percent said it is rarely or never justified.”
On this particular issue, I’d have to align myself with that 29 percent of people who believe it’s happening but not widespread and that 53 percent of people who believe it’s only sometimes justified.
I don’t believe the government is anywhere near powerful enough to spy on absolutely everyone in the country. There’s simply too many people in the country for all intelligence agencies to be able to monitor. And I’m mostly talking about listening in on phone calls and using cameras on your devices to spy on people. I believe the government is capable of that, but not for nearly everyone in the country.
And when they do spy on people, I believe it’s only sometimes justified. There are some cases of terrorist sleeper cells being discovered and arrested, so I can see why it’s sometimes justified. But, obviously, it’s not always justified. We don’t want to be anywhere close to a 1984 George Orwell situation in the country. But there are some times when it’s certainly justified.
For all the times I’ve attacked the FBI, there needs to be a very specific point to be made. And that point is that I’m not attacking the FBI as a whole. By which I mean that I’m not antagonizing the field agents and those who are doing their best to actually keep our country safe from foreign and domestic threats. The people I’m antagonizing are those at the top and those who have some political standing or power - the crooked cops. People who allow their politics to cloud their judgment and drive their actions. People like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the such.
This, I believe, is something that really needs to be said. I don’t hate the FBI. I think that their usual, day to day activity is typically good for the country. What I hate are the cases in which people who should be impartial show Leftist bias and hatred towards a duly-elected President. What I hate is the corruption within the FBI, not the FBI itself. It’s the corruption and the conspiracy (as the Strzok/Page texts show they were trying to do) against Trump.
Regardless, what matters most here is what the poll indicates as a whole. It indicates that people are far more aware of things than you might think. It indicates that, despite the Left’s best efforts to convince people that there’s no such thing as the Deep State, people aren’t just going to take the word of these people. Of course people in the government will say there’s no Deep State. THEY ARE THE DEEP STATE!
And of course the MSM will tell people there’s no Deep State. In a way, THEY ARE PART OF IT! They may not be unelected officials dictating legislation, but they are willing participants in the reporting of fake news stories that are entirely politically charged and aimed at undermining, delegitimizing and defeating Donald Trump.
Granted, the media makes no effort to hide these intentions, but regardless of what they have to say, most people in the country don’t believe the lies that there’s not some sort of shadow government in play here. Most people are able to recognize fake news when they see it, at least when it comes to trying to disregard the notion of a Deep State.
So many people are able to recognize it, in fact, that even a FIFTH of Democrats believe that there’s a Deep State. Again, that’s very significant. While a majority of Democrats are still either oblivious of it or they refuse to believe anything that sides with Trump, there are enough out there who see things for how they are and recognize the corruption within our own government.
Overall, I’m very happy to see these numbers from such a reliable pollster. Again, if you were to go by everything the MSM is reporting, you’d think the world is on fire and everyone is dying. Reality is far different from the garbage these propagandists spew.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
This is a topic I’ve been covering quite a bit recently, but this is a specific argument I would love to share with you: the people who believe in white privilege are hypocrites. And in more than one sense.
First, the white people who believe in white privilege are hypocrites because, despite their seemingly “self-aware privilege”, they do nothing about it. For example, schools administrators in Canada are posting a series of white-shaming posters on school walls. One particular poster (the one above) depicts the superintendent of schools in British Columbia with the caption: “I have unfairly benefitted from the colour of my skin. White privilege is not acceptable.”
Aside from the fact that it’s an eye-rolling statement, it’s also a hypocritical one. Here, she seemingly accepts that “white privilege” is real and that she’s “benefitted” from it. But do you honestly think she’ll do anything to “make things fair”? Or to get rid of the “benefits”? No. In however way she believes she has benefitted from being white, I can tell you that she’s not willing to give that up.
If she believes she got her job because of her “white privilege”, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell she’ll feel guilty enough to resign. If her “white privilege” allowed for the salary she makes, she’s not going to feel guilty enough to take a big pay cut. If her “white privilege” has allowed her to live in a nice house (I don’t know if she does, but I imagine it’s decent), she’s not going to feel guilty enough to move to a desolate place.
All she’s doing is appearing to be “politically correct” in shaming herself for being white but she will never actually do anything to “rectify” herself. That’s why I call her a hypocrite. She believes in the idiotic concept of “white privilege” but would never actually do anything that would take away the “benefits” of her “privilege”.
Now, I also said that there was another way that they are hypocrites. The first way is more specific to white people, but this other way is more for anyone who believes “white privilege” is real, whether they are white or a minority (although I honestly don’t know too many minorities who believe in this. It might be a strictly white issue to be white).
The way they are hypocrites is that they disregard Martin Luther King’s speech entirely. Dr. King had a dream that his children (and, by extension, all people of color) would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Any person that believes white privilege is real entirely ignores that very concept.
For someone, anyone, to say that someone got where they got simply because of their race is to be racist themselves. It’s to be judgmental of someone else’s skin color. Anyone who says Trump is President just because he’s a rich, white man is both ridiculous and racist.
Why? Because if someone’s race or skin color is at the forefront of your mind, then you’re racist. And that’s an inarguable statement. If someone’s biggest issue with Obama was that he is black, then that person is racist. But if his biggest issue with Obama was that he is a communist, that’s not racist at all, although try telling that to any Leftist or anyone in the media.
To attack someone just because they are white is to be racist, even if the attacker is white themselves. I’ve already shared, in a previous article, the story of how Chuck Schumer won’t vote for one of Trump’s judicial nominees simply because he’s white. I’ll make the same argument here as I did in that previous article. Could you imagine the backlash against Schumer if the judge’s skin color was brown or black? Schumer said that the courts under Trump are “too white”.
Let’s replace the word “white” with the word “black”. I’ll even repeat a couple of sentences in my previous paragraph.
“… Chuck Schumer won’t vote for one of Trump’s judicial nominees simply because he’s black… Schumer said that the courts under Trump are ‘too black’.”
If you read that statement back to anyone on the street and omitted the name, they would agree 100% that it’s racist. So why isn’t it racist when it’s the other way around? Why is there no backlash against the Senator? Why is it ok for him to vote against someone just because he’s white?
And that’s not the only example of hypocrisy. Relatively recently, President Trump called Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) someone with a “low I.Q.”
What was Waters’ response? To call him racist. Speaking with MSNBC’s “AM Joy”, the low I.Q. Representative said: “This President… has been name calling. He’s been saying all kinds of things. And I certainly expected him to come out with some racist remark about me. So he did exactly what I expected him do.”
Trump called her an idiot and she showed everyone exactly how right he is. Why would she think he’s being racist? Well, aside from the fact that she believes anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is racist, it’s the fact that she’s black. In her mind, Trump saying she has a “low I.Q.” is racist just because she’s black and goes by the assumption that all black people are dumb.
In her mind, the only reason Trump is saying she has a low I.Q. is because she’s black, not because she actually likely has a low I.Q. That line of reasoning comes from the belief that all black people are dumb. That’s the only way to tie race with intelligence in this case.
Alternatively, if she doesn’t have that fundamental belief that black people are dumb (and I, for one, believe she does), it could be that she believes her skin color should somehow keep people from attacking her politically whatsoever. And that’s equally as racist. If anything, that’s black privilege.
If she believes that just because she’s black, that she’s exempt from being attacked in this manner and anyone who does is racist for doing it, that’s black privilege.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that such an act would be equally as racist for any Hispanic. Let’s take, for example, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). If he had been the one to be called someone with “low I.Q.” and he said that it’s racist, then you can logically conclude that he believes in some sort of Hispanic privilege. That Trump would be racist for saying he has a low I.Q. That he should be somehow exempt from being attacked just because he’s Hispanic.
Interestingly enough, that sort of thing doesn’t apply to conservatives or Republicans. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both Hispanic and are viciously attacked by the Left (not always, since neither is their main focus: Trump).
Being protected by your skin color only applies if you’re a Democrat. How many people called Hillary privileged? She’s white too. How many people have called Pelosi and Schumer privileged? They’re white too. In their minds, these white people are excused from their privilege because they are adamantly against it, at least in speech, not necessarily in deed.
It all ties to the larger, never-ending hypocrisy of the Left. A white Canadian superintendent won’t face any sort of negative coverage from the media (not that many people care, really) because she’s attacking her own skin color. Which, again, begs the question: what would happen if you replaced the word “white” with the word “black”?
Could you imagine the outrage over a black superintendent posting a poster shaming him or herself for being black? Or could you imagine the backlash if the poster wasn’t about the fact that the superintendent is white but that she’s a woman and that’s what has benefited her?
Could you imagine the outrage over black people attacking other black people for being black?
How come there’s no outrage (at least from the media) over white people attacking other white people for being white? White folks are people too.
Now, there’s something to be seriously learned here. In the past, the Left would be hateful towards black people; enslaving them, selling them as property and treating them as such, and going so far as to fight to keep their “right” to own a person. I’ll quote you once again what former Democrat superstar Robert Byrd said about black people: “I am loyal to my country… but I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die… than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wilds.”
Here, Byrd is equating black people to wild animals. So his hatred for black people is very clear. But today, that hatred is directed at white people (at least in speech, not in political deeds and agenda). White people are the new targets of the Left.
This leads me to further cement my belief that the Left hates absolutely everybody. They have, historically, HATED black people. They currently HATE white people. They hate men. They hate women (how else do you explain their support of a “religion” that treats them as less than garbage?) They hate EVERYONE! They see people not as people but as mere things to categorize. Things to own and rule over.
They see everyone else as being beneath them. So when someone who, in their minds, should be beneath them rises to the role of President as Donald Trump did, they are left infuriated and their hatred running amok. That’s my best explanation as to why the Left is acting the way they are towards Trump and his supporters. They see him as someone who should never have even come CLOSE to the highest office in the land that, in their eyes, belongs solely to them.
It’s not difficult to find the incessant hatred of the Left. To say that the Left is full of sympathetic, kind and loving people is to say a sick joke. They are anything but all those things. History shows us exactly who and what they are: the Party of Hatred. The Party of Evil. And the Party of Hypocrisy.
1 John 2:9
“Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.”
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...