If you’ve been paying attention to the news, whether they’re real or fake news, you know very well that there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump colluded with Russia to cheat in the 2016 election. Despite the fact that the fake news media keeps saying: “there’s mountains of evidence” against Trump regarding collusion, there is, in fact, no evidence of collusion. Even a little bit of evidence.
Else, don’t you think Mueller would’ve already issued charges against Trump directly? Don’t you think Congress would’ve already voted to impeach Trump?
There is no evidence of collusion because THERE WAS NO COLLUSION! This much, anyone with some skill in rational thinking can conclude. Still, the House Intel Committee had to also look into these accusations, and on Friday, released a report declaring the panel had not found any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Officially, the 253-page report says that the committee “found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.”
The report also said that both campaigns demonstrated “poor judgment and ill-considered actions”.
About Trump, the committee cited a meeting that took place in June of 2016 between officials in the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who “falsely purported to have damaging information on the Clinton campaign.”
About Clinton, the committee found “that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, using a series of cutouts and intermediaries to obscure their roles, paid for opposition research on Trump obtained from Russian sources, including a litany of claims by high-ranking current and former Russian government officials. Some of this opposition research was used to produce sixteen memos, which comprise what has become known as the Steele dossier.”
Now, these are all things that you and I have known for quite some time. Regardless, it’s still important to point out (crucial, in fact), particularly since the information we know we didn't get thanks to the MSM. The MSM has been trying to bury these facts and information, since they show far more evidence of Clinton-Russia collusion than Trump-Russia collusion. So chances are that most of their viewers don’t know about the malarkey that is the Steele dossier and the payment from the Hillary campaign to put that dossier together.
Chances are that we know far more about what Fusion GPS is than a regular CNN or MSNBC viewer. The fake news media hardly, if ever, talks about Fusion GPS. When talking about the Russian collusion, they will talk about nearly anything else aside from that. And when they talk about the Steele dossier, they focus on the ridiculous little story of Trump hiring prostitutes to urinate on the Obamas’ bed in a hotel in Russia.
Despite how stupid and unbelievable that story is, they still prefer to run it, despite the fact that the Steele dossier has been all but publicly confirmed to be false… even then, conservative media tries its best to publicly confirm it.
And this report is even more substantial because of Trump’s reaction to it. On Twitter, the President tweeted: “Just Out: House Intelligence Committee Report released. ‘No evidence’ that the Trump Campaign ‘colluded, coordinated, or conspired with Russia.’ Clinton Campaign paid for Opposition Research obtained from Russia – Wow! A total Witch Hunt! MUST END NOW!”
The reason it’s more substantial is because this also is brought to the attention of other typical viewers of the MSM. Liberals, as well as conservatives, follow Trump on Twitter. I’ve seen liberals reply to Trump’s tweets time and time again. Regardless of what they are saying (which is usually untrue and misinformed, or a simple joke), the President does have these liberals’ attention.
Now, I don’t doubt that liberals will deny or not believe what he is saying, but the information is being brought to the table. That thought is now in every person that has read that tweet’s heads.
I can’t imagine the MSM bringing this sort of discussion to light for all too long. Heck, even a simple search in the New York Times’ website for “Fusion GPS” takes us to a story, at the near top of the page, about discrediting the attack against Fusion GPS, titled “The Republicans’ Fake Investigations”. Do you want to know who wrote the story? Glenn R. Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS – the opposition research firm that hired Steele to write up the dossier.
All I hear from that article is “I am not a crook!” Does the very founder of Fusion GPS, someone who worked alongside the Clinton campaign to create the Steel dossier, really expect me to believe anything he says to defend the Russia investigation and his own firm? His article’s literal subtitle reads: “The attack on our firm, Fusion GPS, is a diversionary tactic by Republicans who don’t want to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.”
Really? So the fact that the Clinton campaign used you guys to create that dossier is a diversion and entirely irrelevant? Aha, yeah, ok.
Let me remind you what a dossier is: “a collection of documents about a particular person, event, or subject.” That is literally the definition you would get if you were to Google: “dossier definition”. It doesn’t get any more bare-bones than that.
Now, do you know what that definition means? “A collection of documents…” In other words, a collection of EVIDENCE OR FACTS about someone or something!
The dossier was presented to the FISA courts to issue the warrants to spy on American citizen Carter Page. Beyond that, the dossier is the entire basis for Mueller’s Special Counsel Investigation into Russian collusion, which at this point has devolved into literally any sin Trump has ever committed since he was born.
Like I said, the dossier has all but been publicly proven to be false, but all of this information already points to that conclusion. It’s all actual evidence of it.
Again, there is more evidence of Clinton-Russia collusion than there is Trump-Russia collusion. I don’t know how many people still believe the dossier to be true, but there are bound to be some low-information people who do. This report, alongside Trump’s reaction on Twitter, will at least bring this discussion to people’s minds, regardless of whether they believe it or not.
But even having the thought of it in their minds is a good first step. All that is necessary is to provide them with the facts and information necessary to prove what we already know for a fact.
Trump did not collude with Russia to win the election. Hillary did, and she still lost.
“For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.”
On Thursday, April 26, 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve a bipartisan bill aimed at protecting special counsel Robert Mueller from being fired by President Trump. But allow me to tell you why this is nothing more than a PR stunt and would actually be bad for the Left in the long run.
Now, it’s pretty obvious to tell why this is nothing more than a PR stunt. President Trump has not made any indication that he is even thinking, let alone planning, on firing Mueller. He himself has even said that if he was planning on firing Mueller, he would’ve done so last year. The biggest reason the Left is aiming to do this is simply to create a fictitious “victory” over Trump, and gloat over the fact that he would not be able to fire Mueller. But there are some problems with that.
First, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would not bring the bill on to the Senate floor, even if it were to be approved by the committee. Now, I don’t trust a darn thing this snake says. Frankly, I would expect him to either flip on this or act as though he’s caving and allow the full Senate to vote on the bill.
Second, even if the bill passes in the Senate, it still has to go through the House. The bill could be stopped right in its tracks by Republicans in the House of Representatives, but I think there are still too many Establishment Republicans even there to allow that. Regardless, there is still SOME chance it could be stopped there, however slim that chance may be.
Lastly, even if it were to pass both chambers of Congress, why would Trump ever sign it? He could easily veto the bill and send it back to Congress, where enough of a majority would have to be there to override his veto, which means getting a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress. I can hardly see that happening, particularly just a few months away from the midterms.
Trust me, as much as Establishment Republicans hate Trump, they still want to keep their jobs.
Now, if this whole thing is simply a self-sabotaging act on the part of the GOP to give Congress to the Democrats and ensure Trump’s impeachment, I don’t think this would work quite the way they would hope. As traitorous and as useless as they’ve been for most things (I’ll give them credit for the tax cuts), while they have not given anyone much incentive to vote Republican, the Democrats have given enough incentive for people to vote Republican.
Democrats were against the tax cuts that are healing the nation’s families. They are against protecting American citizens and are prioritizing illegals over us. They constantly show their true colors as Marxists who punish those who diverge from their line of thought. If Kanye had attacked Trump, do you think the Left would be attacking him? If Kyle Kashuv were part of the anti-gun club in Parkland, would one of his teachers have called him Hitler?
Time and time again, these people have shown their true colors as hateful and disgusting people who want to raise your taxes, keep African Americans and Hispanics unemployed (because a minority that doesn’t need the government should not be a possibility, in their minds), protect illegal killers and rapists while making you pay for it with the higher taxes they will bring back.
What reason does anyone really have to vote Democrat? They are not even hiding who they are anymore!
As scummy as the Republican Party has been so far, I’d much prefer their useless behinds over blood-thirsty, actually insane and enraged Leftists who will impeach Trump on the simple basis that they think he should’ve lost. No actual crime committed is necessary for them. The simple fact that Trump beat Hillary is enough for Democrats to look to impeach him. Why would Trump supporters allow them the opportunity to overturn everything good that’s been happening over these last 2 years?
I shall leave it at that, since that is a rhetorical question and there is another matter I wish to attend to regarding this vote to protect Mueller.
I said in the title that this is the last thing the Left wants in the long run. Sure, this is a good PR stunt, but that’s all it will give them: immediate gratification. On a practical level, they don’t want to keep Trump from firing Mueller.
Do you have any idea the firestorm that would occur if Trump fires Mueller? That would give the REPUBLICANS in Congress enough ammo to take him out! All they need is even the slightest evidence or “reasonable” suspicion of obstruction of justice, which the firing of Mueller would provide.
Trust me, many GOPers want Trump out too, but they will need something substantial. The only silver-lining of Republicans always “taking the high ground” is that they will not get rid of Trump for the same reasons the Democrats want him out. If they were to take him out only because they wanted him out, that would mark the definitive end of the Republican Party.
Now, you may be thinking: “So what? What is stopping the Republicans from destroying the GOP and simply switching to the Democrat Party and make this country a one-party system?” The simple fact that another Party will eventually rise up and contest the Democrat Party far more heavily than the current GOP.
This new Party would not have the same leadership as the current GOP. It would be led by actual Trump supporters and conservatives. And there goes the best chance the Establishment has at keeping control of the country. Because that Party would be INSANELY popular and would likely win many, MANY elections in the future, thus chipping away at the power the Establishment holds in Washington little by little. Perhaps not immediately, but certainly eventually. And such a strong opposition to the Establishment cannot be allowed to flourish, so they must keep the GOP afloat, at least for the time being.
So the Republicans will absolutely need a SUBSTANTIAL reason to impeach Trump. The firing of Robert Mueller could very well provide that substantial reason and simply accuse Trump of obstruction of justice. It wouldn’t be obstruction, but that’s irrelevant to these overlords. If they can even make it slightly seem like obstruction, that’s enough to keep some NeverTrumpers on their side. And it would be enough to at least keep their Party afloat, if severely weakened. Huge, wealthy donors like the Koch brothers would ensure the GOP’s survival, even if the base has jumped ship.
All things considered, with the fact that the investigation has turned up absolutely nothing on collusion, pressuring Trump into firing Mueller is their best shot at impeaching him. This investigation, on its own, will not lead to Trump’s impeachment. Unfortunately, it will hurt people like Michael Cohen, who’s only crime is being Trump’s lawyer, but it will not result in the impeachment of Donald Trump directly.
Now, if the Democrats were to get a super-majority, then the investigation could be the basis for their impeachment (at least officially), but the investigation itself will not get Trump impeached.
And that’s why I shake my head at the Left’s efforts here. Why would they go for something like this if it could backfire so easily against them in a practical sense? It would get their base to be happy for all of 5 minutes and would serve as a nice distraction from the seemingly-enlightened Kanye West and Chance the Rapper. But in their effort to impeach Trump, this would not help them if passed.
Their goal is to get a super-majority anyway. Why keep the Republicans from having an even slightly legitimate-looking reason to side with them prior to the midterms? If they can get Trump to fire Mueller and get the GOP to side with them in their impeachment efforts, that would at least somewhat preserve the fictitious image that there is bipartisanship and a rule of law in Washington. Such an image, people like you and me can see through. But there are plenty of people who still believe the law applies equally to everyone.
If that were actually the case, Bill and Hillary would’ve long been indicted and sent to jail, Comey would have been indicted, and Obama wouldn’t have even fully served his FIRST term, let alone have a second one.
Now, with all of that said, I have my doubts that this will even pass, let alone be signed into law. If their goal is to get Trump to veto it and accuse him of obstruction, big whoop. They’ve been trying this for A YEAR AND A HALF! Vetoing that bill would not be enough for Republicans to impeach him without utterly destroying the GOP, and thus, debilitating the Establishment in the future.
But let’s allow things to play out here. The Left may get their little emotional “victory”, but this will not amount to anything beneficial to them in terms of actually getting rid of Trump. Meanwhile, I’m still planning on going out to vote this November, all for Republican candidates regardless of whether they are Establishment or not.
My ultimate goal is to simply help Trump remain in office. Hopefully, you share a similar goal with me.
“So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
It’s truly rare, with how often the Left signals the apocalyptic nature of Climate Change, that some climate scientists would release a study that challenges the over-dramatization of the whole scam.
Climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis conducted a new study downgrading the predicted global temperature increases forecasted by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by 30-45%.
“Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level,” said Lewis.
In other words, their study suggests that Climate Change isn’t, at most, half as bad as the U.N. says it is.
This study is in accordance to another study published a few months earlier by University of Exeter’s Peter Cox, which concludes that the U.N.’s most dire of models were too high. “Our study all but rules out very low and very high climate sensitivities,” said Cox.
With all of that being said, I should also mention a video published by PragerU about 2 years ago.
The video features an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT for 30 years who goes by the name of Richard Lindzen. I won’t go into a whole lot of detail about the video; rather, I’ll simply leave it down below for you to watch and learn from.
What I will be focusing on is the fact that, at one point, Richard points out something scientists tend to agree on: “no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.”
Meaning that the only people that are confidently telling us that the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 or 100 years aren’t actual climate scientists, but rather scientists that don’t focus on the field of climatology and politicians, environmentalists, and media people. They are the only ones making the apocalyptic claims about Climate Change. And that much, we can already see.
But it’s important to point this out, because this signifies something important: the only people saying Climate Change will be our demise are the people who don’t have all the information and scientific knowledge to know otherwise.
We’ve known this for some time, but still. If anything, this further proves our conclusion that these people truly don’t know what they are talking about.
Knowing this, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise when actual climate scientists come in and tell people things aren’t nearly as bad as they think they are.
Now, with that said, I think I should also make mention of this: I’m not saying there is absolutely no change in the climate whatsoever. Frankly, I’d be a bit more worried if there was no change in the climate over time, because that’s indicative of something being seriously wrong with the planet.
What I’m saying is that humanity can’t possibly affect the planet anywhere near as much as the Left says we can. Even the video says that humanity is capable of having SOME noticeable effect, but what I’m saying is that the Left believes humanity is SOLELY responsible for Climate Change, which it’s not.
The climate is in nowhere near a horrible a state as the Left claims it is. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And the only things they can ever point to are computer models depicting what the Earth’s climate will be like in 50 to 100 years. Measuring such a thing is virtually impossible because there are far too many variables to confidently say what the Earth will be like in such a long time.
Heck, we can’t even accurately predict the weather IN THE NEXT WEEK! Let me tell you, there is no scientist out there that could’ve predicted a long winter for the beginning of 2018 back in 1968 or 1918. Likewise, we can’t accurately predict how THE ENTIRE WORLD’S CLIMATE will be in 2068 or 2118.
Of course, that doesn’t really matter to the people promoting the “end-times” scam. In copywriting, one of the tools for writers is to use a person’s emotions and feelings. Using someone’s fears to sell them something is a rather popular technique when the fear makes sense.
For example, no one in their right mind could possibly sell a car using the fear tactic. No one would say “buy this car or your spouse/friends/family will HATE you!” But when it comes to a person’s very life and environment, fear can be a good motivator.
How many people do you think tend to vote Democrat out of fear of Climate Change, believing that the Democrat candidate can actually do something to save their planet, and thus, their lives? I imagine tons of people do that, whether that is the only reason or not.
So, Democrats can abuse people’s fears of things they can’t directly control and fears for their own lives in order to win elections. It’s a clear scam, since no one can actually control it enough, so there is a constant fear and a constant “reason” to vote Democrat. The Democrat can’t do anything, but tells people he/she is doing the best they can but they will need constant support and cash flow to save your life.
Thus, Democrats can perpetually remain in power using the fears of people. That’s part of the big scam that is Man-made Climate Change.
Reality is far different from what they say it is. That’s something I’ve said multiple times in the past. Whether I’m talking about the numbers of people that support Trump, or the number of people who are conservative, or the reality of our planet’s climate status, the Left always alters things and makes them look favorable to them and devastating for everyone else.
They said Trump had about a 2% chance of becoming President the day of election, they say that most people despise Trump and regret voting for him, they say Republicans have no chance this November even though they have won multiple Special Elections and there tends to be more turnout in big elections, and they say we are perpetually destroying the planet with our mere existence.
That’s partly what led a lawyer to commit suicide by burning not long ago. It’s the Left’s attempt at altering reality (or at least people’s perception of reality) that drives most people to fear for their lives (at least on this issue), and thus, drives them to vote Democrat.
It’s nothing more than fearmongering to benefit the Establishment, environmentalist groups that Democrats donate to, and “scientists” who really should know better but are paid (either monetarily or through fame, or both) to parrot the Left’s positions.
This is a constant fight for the truth.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Throughout multiple articles, I have repeatedly talked about the Millennial generation and their socialist/wussy tendencies. So it’s easy to forget that there is an entirely newer generation that is younger than them and has not made much noise (aside from the lunatic anti-2nd Amendment Parkland students), largely because they are still rather young.
According to The Barna Group, a religious research company, 13% of Gen Z (those born between 1999 and 2015), identifies as Atheist (as seen above). That may not seem like a whole lot, but you can see from the chart that that number has doubled from the Millennial generation.
Church Militant, another religious research group, reports a “decrease in the number of professed Christians. Over the course of four generations, the percentage who call themselves Christians dropped from 75% among Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) to 59% in Generation Z.”
Barna also reports that: “More than one-third of Gen Z (37%) believes it is not possible to know for sure if God is real, compared to 32% of all adults.”
However, as bad as those numbers may seem, there are also very good numbers.
According to a 2016 study by Dean & Provost, 41% of Gen Z report attending weekly church services, compared to 18% of Millennials who said they went to church at that age, 21% of Gen X saying the same, and 26% of Boomers.
The American Conservative also shows that Gen Z tends to be more morally conservative than the previous generations.
“According to a study released this month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), sexual intercourse among high school students had decreased in the United States by quite a bit. Among males, 43.2 percent of high schoolers surveyed admitted to having sexual intercourse, while 39.2 percent of females answered the same. While that may seem high, it’s a stark decrease from 2005, when 47.9 percent of males and 45.7 percent of females admitted to having sex. And it’s an even bigger dip from the more than 50 percent that the CDC counted in 1995. According to a 1998 Los Angeles Times article, high school sex started to rise in the ‘70s, hit its peak in the ‘80s, then began to slowly decrease in the ‘90s.”
What all of this tells us is that, while more Gen Z kids say they don’t believe in God, the ones that do believe in God do so very strongly. Not only that, but they are also having sex a good deal less as well. And even Forbes tells us that Gen Z tends to be more competitive.
In an article on Forbes, the writer detailed 8 different ways in which Gen Z will differ from Millennials in the workplace.
The first way that they share is that “Gen Z is motivated by security”. What they mean is that Gen Z, having grown up during the Great Recession and Obama’s terrible economy, tends to put more of a focus on financial and job security than Millennials. “While millennials are often seen as more idealistic, and more motivated by purpose than a paycheck, Generation Z may lean more toward security and money.”
They are essentially Yuppies 2.0.
The second way Gen Z is different is that they “may be more competitive”. “As a cohort, millennials are said to be collaborative and teamwork oriented. They want to work in an environment where inclusion is a priority, and where everybody works together to advance goals. Gen Z, on the other hand, is said to be defined by its competitiveness. They want to work on their own and be judged on their own merits rather than those of their team.”
“Gen Z also understands that there’s a need for constant skill development in order to stay relevant.”
The third way Gen Z is different, which actually ties in to the second, is that “Gen Z wants independence”.
“Gen Zers’ independence ties into their competitiveness, but they generally like to work alone… Many also want to manage their own projects so that their skills and abilities can shine through. They do not want to depend on other people to get their work done.”
Another way, which is actually even more surprising and endearing, in which they are different is that “Gen Z is more entrepreneurial”.
“Generation Z is 55% more likely to want to start a business than millennials. In fact, a full 72% of Gen Z high school students say that they want to start a business.”
All of this information is indicative that Generation Z is more truly fiscally conservative than many of the previous generations. Not to mention that, while more Gen Zers claim to be Atheists, the ones that do claim to be Christian are very solidly Christian if that 41% weekly church attendance is any indication.
If the Millennial generation is the socialist generation, Gen Z is the generation that will fight the previous generation to keep this country capitalist.
Now, I don’t know that for sure, of course. A lot can change in an entire generation. Frankly, knowing only what Millennials want to accomplish, I was all but sure that America would almost entirely crumble as a capitalist nation. That’s a thought that really scared me as I’m part of that generation and I will have to deal with their imbecilic values being transformed into actual legislation one day.
But with the numbers and statistics that we are seeing from Gen Z, as well as that competitive drive that Forbes is talking about, I can have at least some hope that Gen Z can truly take the fight to these socialist children (who are older than Gen Zers, but somehow also less mature, seemingly) and at least keep this country from going full-on communist over the course of this century.
“But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.”
Over the weekend, former NFL kicker Jay Feely shared a picture of him with his daughter and her prom date, holding a handgun (that isn’t pointing at anyone) and with the caption: “Wishing my beautiful daughter and her date a great time at prom. #BadBoys”
And it’s precisely because he was holding a gun that the Left went absolutely insane and attacked him.
Here are just some of the crude tweets from enraged liberals:
“Let’s see… Daddy poses for a photo by standing between daughter and her date, while holding a hand gun?! The clear message is what? That you own a gun? You make a strong case that MANY GUN OWNERS SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN!! Totally irresponsible.”
You kiddin’ me? The stereotypical overprotective father with a gun is as old as fatherhood itself, and you think he’s being irresponsible? First, he’s not aiming the gun at the boy. Second, his finger is off the trigger. And third, the safety is on. That’s fantastic gun responsibility and safety, but I couldn’t expect a liberal to understand what that means.
Here’s another tweet, which is actually in response to the previous one: “He is also apparently sending a message that he owns his daughter, and this kid better not trespass on his ‘property’.”
Aren’t liberals the same people that tell us that we should teach our boys to respect women and not abuse them? Such an intimidating image (whether intentional or not) will teach the young man that if he messes with his daughter, he will take away what supposedly makes him a man… at best.
So because he’s teaching that lesson with a gun, all of a sudden that’s the wrong message to send? He’s not sending a message saying that he’s got a gun or that his daughter is his property. He’s sending a message that his daughter is very important to him and if he hurts her in any way, he should know that he’s perfectly capable of dealing with him.
I truly hope not one of the people attacking Feely have a daughter, because you’re a pretty terrible father if you’re not willing to go to any extreme lengths to protect your daughter.
Thankfully, there are also some sensible people that see the joke for what it is and don’t blow it out of proportion just because there is a gun in the picture.
“Ok honestly, why the hell is this news? 5 years ago this would’ve just been posted on iFunny and Reddit for 2 days and we would move on. What happened to this country that we can’t take jokes anymore? What harm does this cause exactly?”
As well as: “Thank you this is a joke and people don’t have anything better to do than try to make this bigger than it is.”
But even the sensible people, expectedly, were bashed and brought into a gun debate.
“I have nothing better to do since my son was shot by someone jokingly pointing a gun at him. There’s nothing funny about guns to me anymore.”
Which prompted this response: “Good thing this guy isn’t pointing the gun at him, the gun’s safety is on, and his finger isn’t on the trigger. Your tragedy doesn’t take away from the fact that is a HARMLESS joke. Cars kill more people every year than guns, but we don’t care when people pose in front of them.”
And so, another liberal replied: “I don’t get backlash over an unfunny played-out joke, but this stupid comparison of cars and guns has to stop, they are nothing alike. Cars serve a vast array of purposes and benefits and were not designed to kill, guns are manufactured for being good at tearing through flesh.”
Thankfully, the sensible person proved just why she was sensible: “Their intended purpose doesn’t matter. People can repurpose anything into a weapon, which is how London’s murder rate surpassed NYC’s bc of their stabbings. Knives, cars, hammers, etc are all deadlier than guns. Saying ‘but they weren’t made for that!’ doesn’t change that.”
And that’s precisely correct, but I don’t intend to go too far into the gun debate.
What I will get into is the Left’s hypersensitivity to seeing things they don’t like and their hypocrisy on the values they hold.
Like one of the tweets said earlier, this joke 5 years ago would’ve been online and strictly be seen as a joke and people would move on. Today, it sparks a debate because snowflakes can’t even stand the sight of a gun.
Not only that, they go as far as to essentially accuse the guy of “owning” his daughter. No, he doesn’t own her, but he is her father. As such, he has a certain level of authority over her. And because he clearly loves his daughter, he shows he’s willing to protect her at any cost, even if he did it in a half-jokingly manner.
Again, it’s these same people that are supposedly telling us that we should teach our boys to respect girls and not abuse them. But that lesson goes out the window if a gun is being used as the teaching tool? Would they have preferred he pose in his car about to run over the guy? Because apparently, cars are better than guns because their intended purpose isn’t to neutralize or destroy someone else.
Would they rather he have held a kitchen knife because the purpose of a kitchen knife is to slice food?
It’s ridiculous to attack the guy for doing what ANY GOOD PARENT WOULD DO AND THAT IS TO PROTECT THEIR YOUNG!
Such a concept is so basic that ANIMALS DO IT TOO! A mama bear will protect her cubs at the risk of even her own life. A father will protect his young at the cost of going to prison. Jay Feely, even if he meant this as a joke, shows the lengths at which he’s willing to protect his daughter. Who would attack him for that? How can anyone say this is wrong?
I’ll tell you who and how: liberals. Liberals would attack him, and clearly have, entirely missing the point. They say he’s sending a message that he has a gun or that his daughter is his property. TO HELL WITH THAT! He’s sending the message that his daughter is the most precious thing in his life and if anyone in this world is willing to bring harm to her, physical or otherwise, he’s willing to utterly DESTROY that person no matter the consequences.
That’s not insanity nor irresponsibility. It’s love. A concept that clearly escapes these people. The people who attack him and say he “owns” his daughter and that it’s wrong clearly have never experienced the kind of love a parent has for their child. Either they don’t have children of their own or they do have children but are not willing to go to any length to protect them, which is sad.
Now, this being the age of liberals bullying people into submission, Feely felt as though he needed to apologize for the picture, saying: “The prom picture I posted was obviously intended to be a joke. My daughter has dated her boyfriend for over a year and they knew I was joking. I take gun safety seriously (the gun was not loaded and had no clip in it) and I did not intend to be insensitive to that important issue.”
Absolutely no apology necessary. Frankly, I would much prefer he stick it to the ignorant jerks attacking him. He easily could’ve just told them to chill because his gun was entirely harmless and he only meant it as a joke.
Unfortunately, the Left is full of people who will stop at nothing to make sure the people they attack utterly submit to their will.
When I have a daughter who is going to prom, I will take a picture just like that, but holding a shotgun. And it too will be just a joke... well, half-joke. If any liberal wants to attack me for that, they are more than welcome to do so, given the right to do so by the 1st Amendment. That being said, they should also expect me to go full force at them and offer no apology for doing the right thing and that is to protect my little girl no matter how old she is.
And if anyone wants to say that I’m displaying “toxic masculinity”, I’ll simply guide them to the nearest CVS or Walgreens for their daily dose of “ouch, my feewings!” medication.
“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
Over the year and a half since Trump’s 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady has blamed multiple entities for her loss including: James Comey, the FBI, Russian bots, Wikileaks, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Facebook, Twitter, the vast right-wing conspiracy, sexism, white women, women who vote for whom their husbands vote for and many, many other people.
This time, however, it’s her husband Bill that is pointing the finger at an entity. And somehow, it may be even more ridiculous than all the others.
Bill Clinton blames THE NEW YORK TIMES for Hillary’s loss.
Now, you may be thinking that it shouldn’t be insanely surprising. After all, Hillary has already thrown a lot of Leftist entities under the bus. But it’s not just who Bill blames, but also in the way he blames them.
He doesn’t just blame The NYT for not praising Hillary enough or support her enough. Rather, he ACCUSES The New York Times of WORKING WITH TRUMP!
Let me give you some necessary information. Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times, has a new book called: “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling.”
Ignoring the eye-rolling part about the glass ceiling, let’s look at what Amy has to say.
“After the election, Bill would spread a more absurd Times conspiracy: The publisher had struck a deal with Trump that we’d destroy Hillary on her emails to help him get elected, if he kept driving traffic and boosting the company’s stock price.”
Yep, according to Bill, the NYT was working in cahoots with the Trump campaign to destroy Hillary.
Here are some of NYT’s articles pre- and post-election: “Hillary Clinton, a Woman Dogged by Men’s Misdeeds,” published on Nov. 10, 2016. “Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Manterrupted,” published Sept. 27, 2016. “How Hillary Clinton Became A Hawk,” whatever that means, published on April 21, 2016. “Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins,” published Oct. 27, 2016.
The New York Times is as pro-Hillary and anti-Trump as you can get. So for Bill to be accusing them of making some sort of deal with Trump to beat Hillary is ridiculous.
If you still aren’t convinced that the NYT is very anti-Trump, here are some articles about Trump himself: “Donald Trump, Manly He-Man,” mocks the NYT on Feb. 27, 2018. “Donald Trump Sure Has a Problem With Democracy,” ironically mentions the NYT on March 6th, 2018. “’I Voted for Donald Trump, and I Regret It’”, claims the NYT with people who most certainly did not vote for Trump.
And let’s not forget the fact that Trump has repeatedly called them “the failing New York Times”.
Now, aside from detailing Bill’s absurd claims, Chozick’s book also gives us some great insights into the Hillary campaign and the mood during and after the election.
The Daily Beast shares: “On the night of the election, Chozick describes a dejected Clinton when she was told by campaign staffers that it was over.”
“’Of all the Brooklyn aides, Jen Palmieri had the most pleasant bedside manner,’ Chozick writes. ‘That made her the designated deliverer of bad news to Hillary. But not this time. She told Robby there was no way she was going to tell Hillary she couldn’t win. That’s when Robby, drained and deflated, watching the results with his team in a room down the hall from Hillary’s suite, labored into the hallway of the Peninsula to break the news. Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me…’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”
While that doesn’t necessarily relate to Bill’s accusation, it’s a neat little insight into the Hillary campaign’s mood upon realizing there was no chance Hillary could beat Trump and Hillary’s personal mood about receiving the news.
Frankly, it’s pretty overdramatic, as emotional and crushing as it would feel to lose a national election. “They were never going to let me be president”? As though she deserved it? I can see why she would think that. After all, she chose to remain with her predator of a husband to keep the Party unified, and chose to support the up-and-coming hot shot of a candidate that beat her when she had the best chance to become President back in 2008.
She’s the most cheated on woman in America, so it’s easy to see why she thought she deserved to be President. However, for every reason she thinks she should’ve been President, there are a million more reasons that she shouldn’t be. That’s a concept that most people in America have agreed upon, given the results of the election.
Thankfully, she isn’t President and will almost certainly never become President.
Now, returning to Bill, it’s rather hilarious to see him put the blame on a pro-Hillary entity, particularly accusing them of working with Trump.
It really depicts the desperation of the Hillary campaign, or at least of Bill Clinton. Beyond that, I think it really depicts just how broken and shocked they were to see Trump win. Next to no one, other than maybe Trump himself, expected Trump to win.
We have seen the effect it has had on Hillary’s mind and we now also see the kind of effect it has had on Bill. The Left’s patented victim mentality is at full display with Bill accusing the NYT of being almost directly against them.
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”
In recent time, I’ve been surprisingly speaking positively about California, or at least the citizens of California. About a week ago, I had spoken about the possibility of California being split up into three different states with their own governing bodies.
And more good news keep coming from one of the least likely places.
A survey, surprisingly conducted by UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society (by the name alone, you can tell how Leftist they are), showed that there was strong support for some of Trump’s immigration agenda in even the state’s most left-leaning areas.
“About 24 percent of the survey’s participants said it’s ‘very important’ for the U.S. to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, while 35 percent said it’s ‘somewhat important,’ according to the poll. That viewpoint even held true in the Bay Area, were 25 percent of those surveyed said increasing deportations is very important and 35 percent said it’s somewhat important.”
“And about 49 percent of Californians support temporarily banning people from Muslim-majority countries, according to the poll. In the Bay Area, 44 percent of residents support the ban, the least out of any region in California.”
When you put together the number of people who think it’s very or somewhat important to increase deportations, that number equals 59%, meaning 59% of the people surveyed wanted an increase in deportations.
Need I remind you that this is CALIFORNIA?!
And like I mentioned in the title, that’s not all. The report says that 49% of Californians support the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries.
58% said that increasing taxes on corporations would hurt or make no difference to the California economy.
54% said the government should play a minor role or no roll at all in reducing income inequality.
Only 54% of Californians have a positive view of Muslims (I say only because, again, this is California. You’d think that number would be at least decently higher).
“73% of Californians hold positive views toward Asian Americans; 73% say that members of the group are intelligent”, which is honestly kind of funny and kind of racist when you think about it. One major stereotype of Asian people is that they are super smart or at least very good at math. So for this number to come out is actually kind of funny.
They also have numbers about views on Latinos (75% positive) and their intelligence (57% think they’re intelligent), as well as African Americans (70% positive) and 51% think they’re intelligent, and white people (69% positive, which is not surprising that it’s lower than the others, but still decently high) with 59% saying they think white people are intelligent.
Now, it’s not all fantastic news. 79% support a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, 66% reject the idea of a wall as a priority, and 68% say big businesses and corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes (and yes, I, as well as UC Berekely, recognize the paradox with that and the statistic saying 58% think raising taxes on corporations hurts or doesn’t affect the state economy).
But all of these things were already expected out of California. With the way the media and the Democrats paint DREAMers, I’m not surprised at the support for them.
It’s all the other numbers that are the real story here. They’re absolutely mind-blowingly in support of things that Trump is looking to do or at least what conservatives want. Let me remind you that Trump lost California by 29 points. So it’s really fantastic to see these numbers.
But we’re not done sharing good news.
“Nearly half of Californians (45%) report that being Christian is an important part of being American”, “73% think that blending into larger society is an important part of being American” and “88% think speaking English is important”.
Let me remind you also that California is the nation’s only sanctuary state. A state that happily welcomes illegal immigrants and shields them from the Trump administration seeking to impart justice upon them.
I’m particularly surprised at the number of people who think being Christian is important to being an American. I have all but given up on the state in terms of Christianity. I believe I’ve even gone so far as to say that it’s a sort of Sodom 2.0.
That certainly was my view, at the very least.
Now, I’m not saying that things will immediately improve for the state. If they hope things will improve, they will first have to get rid of Gov. Jerry Brown. Thankfully, this is Brown’s assured final term as Governor because he’s ineligible to run for re-election this November thanks to term limits in the California Constitution (Brown has been Governor of California since 2011 and was also Governor from 1975 to 1983).
But that won’t really matter if California elects another socialist Democrat, so conservatives in California will have to vote either for a conservative candidate (say, Travis Allen, who boasts about having voted for Trump, according to the LA Times) or will have to vote to split up the state in three ways.
Regardless, that will be left for Californians to deal with in the Fall. It’s up to them to decide what kind of future they will have.
But all things considered, I’m actually pretty happy to see some of those numbers. For as far-Left as the media, Hollywood, and the California government paint the state, the people there are seemingly a good deal more conservative than we give them credit for.
I’m reminded of jokes people would make at California’s expense, such as when Trump says we should build a wall, we should also build it along California’s national border, not just the international border; or when Kim Jong-un would threaten to blow up the country, people would joke that California should be target practice for him.
When making those jokes, obviously, people would think about the Hollywood liberals and the Leftists running the state into the ground. It’s easy to forget that there are plenty of conservatives there as well, at least living outside of the big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and others.
Even I had forgotten about them, when I believed California had long reached a point of no return. But all is seemingly not lost. Yes, the Left has a stronghold in California, but the people there are seemingly waking up.
Which is honestly not a surprise, really. The Left’s policies are always detrimental for everyday people. You can put as much sugar on crap as you want, but at the end of the day, it’s still crap.
I think people are beginning to realize this, given these numbers. Don’t misunderstand, they are still very Left-leaning in other areas. I didn’t see anything about abortion or “sexual identity” in the survey, and even in some things, most people still responded with Left-leaning answers.
But considering how far gone I had naively come to believe California was, I’d say these are pretty good news. I’m just hoping that this trend away from socialism continues to grow and people can Make California Great Again.
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”
Starbucks has been under fire lately, seemingly for “racial bias” due to a video showing two black men being arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks and another story of a black man being denied entry to a restroom. I won’t go into a whole lot of detail about it, just know that, according to the woman who recorded the video, the staff at the shop called the police because the men hadn’t ordered anything while they waited for a friend to arrive and another incident in which a black man needed to use the restroom, having not made a purchase, and was denied entry despite the fact that another man, who was white, also had not made a purchase but was allowed entry.
The first situation is rather strange, as the two black men seemingly were not doing anything wrong, just sitting in the shop and waiting for their friend. I don’t know what warranted the manager to call the police or what warranted the police to arrest the two men. Thankfully, they were both released some hours later, but you really have to wonder what could have been going on there.
According to witnesses, the two men weren’t doing anything.
Due to these two circumstances, Starbucks has been under fire, with the hashtag “#BoycottStarbucks” popping up, prompting Starbucks CEO to do some damage control and conduct a “racial-bias education program”.
Now, I’m not going to defend Starbucks in the least. They are progressive loons and I’ve been doing my own “#BoycottStarbucks” movement for a very long time for different reasons. But it’s very interesting to see a company that has a brand of progressivism seem so racist.
Of course, they’re Leftists, so maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised, but still. Their whole brand is that of “progressives” who are only biased against police and military. They don’t tend to show bias against black people, so it’s very interesting to see this.
But I really should be getting to the bigger reason I’m writing this article. I, for one, don’t really care for Starbucks’ reputation or what people think about them. That’s not the reason I’m writing this article. The reason for this article is that a black man shared a video on Twitter in which he, in essence, took advantage of the scrutiny Starbucks has been getting and managed to convince a barista to give him a free coffee.
The video shows the man telling the barista: “I heard ya’ll was racist, so I came to get my free coffee.”
The barista, who is a white female, responds: “I saw that!”
Prompting the man to say: “I heard you guys don’t like black people, so I came to get my Starbucks reparations voucher.”
The barista then said: “Is that a real thing?” It’s not. “I mean, I’ll give it to you, I saw that on my Twitter last night and I was like, what the f**k!”
The barista then proceeds to make the man the coffee and the man sarcastically said: “That’s what I’m talking about! This is justice.”
Now, there’s nothing malicious about this video or what I’m saying about the man. The man, whom I’ll refer to as Bryan Sharpe, his name, was simply taking advantage of the ignorance of the company and the barista. As a matter of fact, he even commented with: "Black privilege gets me free coffee. I love racism. Only in America." Clearly, all he was doing was trolling the barista.
All he had to do was claim Starbucks is racist and the barista complied, giving him free coffee, which is most likely a violation of company policy, but since this is “reparations” in the barista’s mind, it’s fine.
The barista didn’t want to make it seem as though she was racist herself, and so she complied with Sharpe’s request to get some coffee free of charge. It’s more funny than it is anything else.
But this does highlight how tightly wound the Left is when it comes to racial issues. If they appear to have been racist, even if they weren’t, they will immediately submit and apologize. The ironic part in their efforts to restrict free speech is that they end up restricting their own free speech some times.
I recall a time when Ozzy Osbourne’s daughter, Kelly, was on The View and proceeded to say something that was viewed as racist. This was back during the 2016 election and they were talking about Donald Trump. Kelly Osbourne said: “If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?”
Of course, she immediately had to apologize and attempt to rephrase it. Frankly, as a Latino, I found that to be more funny than offensive. Personally, I don’t really get offended if someone attacks my race. If someone refers to me as a Mexican, I’ll correct them since that’s a nationality, not a race, but I won’t get offended.
I’m not petty and shallow enough to be offended by something so silly. Someone could call me a “beaner” and I still wouldn’t care. But the interesting thing is that, Leftists do care about that.
They don’t ever want to offend anyone, unless that person is a Christian, conservative, Trump supporter and Republican, but they don’t want to offend other people. So, they restrict even their own speech.
Now, I’m not saying we should all start saying the N-word, or call gay people the F-word. It’s in pretty bad taste to do something like that. But people shouldn’t be so concerned about “offending” people. Cotton shouldn’t offend black people. A cross shouldn’t offend Atheists. Darwin’s Origin of the Species certainly doesn’t offend me.
The American flag shouldn’t offend people. Kelly Osbourne’s comment shouldn’t offend Latinos. It should be refuted, since she’s making the assumption that Trump wants to deport all Latinos, which is simply not true, but it shouldn’t offend people.
Likewise, the Starbucks barista shouldn’t risk her own job (though this being Starbucks, and given the reasons she gave free coffee to the guy, I don’t think there’s much risk anyway) just to “appease” someone who is very clearly taking advantage of the company’s situation.
Now, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be anything that offends us. Of course, there are legitimate reasons to be offended. I was certainly offended when Joy Behar insulted the Vice President’s Christian beliefs. I was also offended that it took her about a month to apologize.
I was offended at the “art” piece of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine. I’m offended every time NFL players protest the National Anthem. I’m offended every time someone burns the American flag or flies it upside down.
I’m offended every time someone is discriminated against for their Christian or Jewish faith, their conservative views or their support of Trump.
Why? Because these are legitimate reasons to be offended. Cotton is not something to be offended over. No black person today has had to pick cotton under the threat of a white master. No white person today has owned a slave.
The Starbucks barista shouldn’t feel as though she’d commit some sort of hate crime by denying the guy some free coffee. And notice how every time I refer to Sharpe, unless it’s important to take notice, I never refer to him as “the black man”? Just “the man”? That’s because, unless it’s necessary to point it out, I don’t care about the guy’s race. Same goes for the barista. I could’ve referred to her as “the white barista” or “the female barista”, but neither is necessary to point out every single time.
THAT is what real progress looks like. What real EQUALITY looks like. Not looking at someone and referring to them as their race unless it’s absolutely necessary and certainly not taking advantage of my own race to make someone else feel guilty. I don’t care about the guy’s or the barista’s race or gender. But that is all liberals and Leftists can focus on.
If someone didn’t get a job in a company and they tell their liberal friend about it, they might think there’s race discrimination going on.
Remember the Canadian superintendent in the “white privilege” poster? That she claimed that her skin color had given her unfair advantages?
How is that in any way progressive? How is that in any way equalizing? How is a Starbucks barista giving free coffee to a black man “reparations” for at least the incidents surrounding the company?
How are reparations a way to move forward? All they are is an excuse not to try to be successful and asking for things to be given to you, forcing a member of another race to feel guilty for transgressions that had nothing to do with them and had everything to do with the Democrat Party.
The way to move forward isn’t to essentially put white people in the place of black people of the past. That would literally be regression. The way to move forward isn’t also shaming and attacking someone for being white. That’s also regression.
The way to move forward is to study history so that we may never again repeat it.
Alas, I digress. Returning to Sharpe, I’m not trying to call him out for anything. If anything, I’m calling out the fear and ignorance coming from the barista. She seemed like a nice enough kid trying to do the right thing, but she shouldn’t be so worried about appearing racist if she were to say “no”. If there’s a racial problem with Starbucks or its employees, that’s up to the company and the individual employees, not her necessarily.
“For God shows no partiality.”
If you read my previous article about James Comey, you know that I mentioned in the end that the media would eventually get tired of him and return to Stormy Daniels. That article was published on Monday. It’s Wednesday. And already, the media has gotten tired of him. That’s gotta be some sort of record.
CNN’s Ana Navarro tweeted on Monday: “Maybe it’s just me… the more I hear from Comey, the more conflicted I feel. I want to believe him that this is all about loyalty to country and inviolable respect for the truth. But damn, the guy has a big ego, is selectively inconsistent. I find him obnoxiously self-righteous.”
It’s honestly astounding how quickly James Comey came to be even somewhat disliked by the media.
And Navarro wasn’t the only one who expressed dissatisfaction with Comey. Politico has suggested that Comey’s “white knighthood” was distracting from his story about the administration’s supposed misdeeds.
An op-ed on the Washington Post called Comey an “honest man”, but also called his memoir a “big mistake” and a seemingly “desperate” attempt at staying relevant.
Even the New York Times had a story condemning Comey, opining that Comey has become a lot more like Trump: “he has abetted his own transformation from a crucial witness to a character in the serial drama and nonstop spectacle of Trump’s life.”
Frankly, I find that comparison to be rather offensive but not entirely unexpected from the NYT. It’s entirely expected that they would insult Trump but not expected that they would insult Comey and even likening him to Trump.
But let’s try to view these things from a liberal’s point of view. How badly do you have to mess up for the media to get sick and tired of you even though you’ve been fighting a war with Trump the entire time? When someone expresses a conservative belief or thought, that person tends to be immediately shunned and attacked, forcing them to submission and apology. But Comey has done nothing short of being another typical Deep State Leftist at war with the POTUS and yet, he’s still being attacked by at least some members of the media who are theoretically in the same camp as Comey.
Again, how badly do you have to mess up for even your own people to dislike you when you’ve been striving to do precisely what they want you to do? Not to mention that this came surprisingly quickly.
I had predicted that Comey’s memoirs about Trump would eventually die out and the media would move on to something else, but I had also expected the media to milk that toxic cow for all its worth before moving on. The book has only come out YESTERDAY and the media has been sick of him since even before that.
Again, Navarro tweeted that on Monday, the day before Comey’s book came out. And she was already sick of him.
This whole storyline with Comey lasted about as long as the Democrats’ government shutdown. Of course, it’s not because of anything Comey has written in his book. It’s full of malarkey that the Left can’t get enough of. It’s been seemingly, given what the MSM sources have said, all about his ego and personality.
Now, I personally have not seen any interview with James Comey. I don’t care to watch a full hour of crap when I could be doing something far more productive. But there’s no doubt that the media and the Left have most, if not all, watched some interviews with James Comey. Furthermore, there’s no doubt that, aside from the Stormy Daniels story, James Comey was the biggest story for them to talk about.
They were hoping and even hyping this book to be the end or at least a key component in the destruction of Donald Trump. They were hanging on to every letter and word in that book and everything that came out of Comey’s mouth.
So you really have to be a narcissistic egomaniac to turn off people who are in your own side. And no, he’s not at all like Trump. Trump touts his accomplishments because virtually no one else will (have you even heard any story coming from the MSM about low black and Hispanic unemployment rates or Trump’s 50% approval rating?) But Trump never thinks himself better than everyone else in the room with him. That’s what the Left does.
The Academy Awards is one massive stink cloud of narcissism, egos and self-righteousness. Every member of the MSM acts as though every word they say is gospel and every word they type is sacred scripture. And those who wholly disagree with them are nothing but uncultured swine that don’t even deserve the time to be reading their “holy texts.”
And given James Comey is another Leftist, albeit as a bigger part of the Deep State, I’m not surprised that he shares the same common traits as his political peers. What I am surprised by, as I’ve said over and over again, is at how quickly people within his own political spectrum have come to grow tired of him.
It was likely inevitable, I suppose. Obama had soured on Comey eventually. So has former AG Loretta Lynch, as well as Hillary Clinton (though it’s arguably more understandable for her), and so did Trump before the President fired him.
Given all of these accounts, Comey is a pretty despicable person. Granted, I have my own reasons, as a conservative and Trump supporter, to dislike him, but it’s pretty interesting that even members of his own political side have come to at the very least dislike him.
And you really have to be a massive jerk in every aspect of your life for even the Left to dislike you despite your efforts against Trump.
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate.”
Over this past weekend, an environmental activist committed suicide in a park in Brooklyn, New York, to protest the use of “fossil fuel” and the supposed damage it’s doing to the world and its inhabitants.
The New York Post reported: “David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using ‘fossil fuel’ to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.”
Some of the note reads as follows: “Most humans on the planet now breathe air made unhealthy by fossil fuels, and many die early deaths as a result… My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves,” adding: “Honorable purpose in life invites honorable purpose in death.”
“This is not new,” continued the letter. “As many have chosen to give a life based on the view that no other action can most meaningfully address the harm they see. Here is a hope that giving a life might bring some attention to the need for expanded actions, and help others give a voice to our home, and Earth is heard.”
This man horrendously ended his own life because he bought into the false belief of climate change. A hoax perpetrated by the Left to increase the size of the government, their power and their bank accounts has led a person to end his own life.
David fully believed the lies the Left was spewing about climate change and its apocalyptic nature, and believed we weren’t doing enough to end it… also believing we even could end it if it were happening.
Now, the air is fine. We are able to breathe just as well today as we could a century ago. And we’ll be able to breathe just as fine in a century as well. The only place that comes to mind that actually has unhealthy air to breathe would be China. In the U.S., we are far better off than the Chinese because we don’t have to constantly wear masks to cover our noses when we go outside.
David believed we are slowly but surely burning ourselves. There is no actual scientific data to show that we are doing such a thing. We are in the middle of April and have yet to fully experience Spring. Frankly, we’re closer to a global cooling than we are a global warming.
But none of that matters to the Left. As long as they can continue making money from exploiting people’s fears and can win elections and regain/retain power, they don’t care about people like David, whom they’ve mortally terrified with their lies.
Time and time again, climate change has been refuted by people who use logic and actual science, and time and time again, it has been claimed to be factually true by people who pervert science on a daily basis.
The same people that say there are more than two genders are the same people that say they believe and support science and facts. And no, gender isn’t different from sex. They’re synonyms. You can literally Google: “gender synonym” and the answer will be right there. Your gender is determined by your DNA, scientifically speaking, at least. Actually speaking, it would be God who determines your gender.
But the topic is science, so we’ll stick with science.
The Left, as I’ve said multiple times in the past, has made an utter mockery of science by making these inaccurate claims. And now, that propagandized science has taken the life of a human being. It’s not climate change that killed David, it’s the BELIEF and FEAR that climate change is real that killed him.
Nazism has killed over 10 million people. Communism has killed over 100 million. And Leftism has killed over 60 million people since Roe v. Wade in the U.S., and 1.4 BILLION in the world since 1980 (of course, this is all counting abortion). And over this weekend, it has killed someone who believed every word they said.
This is one of the very real consequences of the climate change movement. Of the movement made popular by Al Gore, and originated from Nazi Germany.
And the Left doesn’t care one single bit. Actually, let me correct that. They do care, but only in that he is made to be a martyr for them. CNN has already made quick work of this story, putting him on a pedestal for his work as a lawyer towards legalizing same-sex marriage.
But aside from a couple of nice (from a Leftist’s perspective) words about the guy, the Left will likely be quick to forget about him until he can be used once again for the very cause that cost him his life.
That’s how degenerate the Left is. They always use people to further their own agenda, even when that very agenda is what cost that person their life. They constantly use MLK for their own agenda despite the fact that he was a Republican and that Democrats were widely against the Civil Rights movement.
I fully believe that, given the chance, the Left would use David to further their agenda and make even more people afraid. Because that’s exactly what they want. They want people to be afraid, because people who are afraid will look for safety anywhere. They can “provide” that safety so long as those people vote Democrat.
It’s nothing more than fear-mongering and exploitation and it’s a Leftist specialty. There’s no other kind of person on Earth who would exploit the fears of others to advance their selfish agenda and desires. And there’s no other word to call them than “evil”.
Not a single one of the top climate change advocates will shed an actual tear and rethink what he’s doing. Because what it takes for someone to reconsider such a thing in this circumstance would be something I like to call “guilt”. The Left never feels this. They only pretend to feel it when talking about white people and black people, but even then they direct that guilt away from them as though they shouldn’t be lumped in with white people.
Chuck Schumer is white, Nancy Pelosi is white, Bill and Hillary Clinton are white; most prominent Democrats are white and somehow distance themselves from their own race when talking about “white guilt” as though they are not part of it, and they are the ones that have the most to do with African-Americans’ struggles in the U.S.
They never actually feel the “white guilt” they tell other white people they should feel because Leftists don’t ever actually feel guilt. All of these things advance their agenda, what would they have to feel guilty about? The self-imposed death of one of their advocates? To the Left, their biggest loss comes in the form of one less voter. That’s it.
And even then, if this can somehow result in more voters, they wouldn’t feel any sort of loss whatsoever, particularly if they can somehow turn this on Trump and conservatives and say something along the lines of “your inaction towards climate change cost this man his life” or something like that.
The Left won’t feel shame from this, knowingly lying to people about this and seeing the cost of those lies.
David should not have died on that day, certainly not in that manner. His blood is not on the hands of anyone but the Left and those who know climate change isn’t real but still pass it off as though it is. And I fully believe there are plenty of Leftists who know it’s not real but keep it to themselves so as to not go against their agenda.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
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...