Have you ever found yourself in a situation in which you were hit on the head and felt like you might have lost brain cells as a result? Regardless of the way in which you hit your head, chances are, you still have more brain cells than the entire Democrat field and those who watched the Democrat debates after they were over.
 
That’s how embarrassingly stupid the first Democrat debate was, which is what we will mostly be focusing on. Although, I don’t know why I was expecting anything else from them.
 
Let’s begin with Señor Robert Francis O’Rourke when he somehow managed to avoid answering a question relating to taxes in two different languages.
 
Early on in the debate, moderator Savannah Guthrie asked O’Rourke: “Some Democrats want marginal, individual tax rate of 70% of the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year. Would you support that, and if not, what would be your top individual rate?”
 
To which Robert responded: “This economy has got to work for everyone, and right now, we know that it isn’t. And it’s gonna take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.” That was what he said in English, which 1) entirely avoided the question and 2) was a complete lie, considering we are in an economic boom and minorities are experiencing record-low unemployment rates that have been steady during Trump’s administration thus far.
 
Then, despite being limited on time, Robert said this in Spanish (and Spanish that wasn’t even entirely grammatically correct): “We need to include every person in the success of this economy. But if we want to do that, we have to include every person in our democracy. Every vote needs representation and every voice needs to be heard.”
 
Again, entirely avoiding the question, but in a uniquely dumb manner that even liberal late night hosts made fun of.
 
Let me remind you that the question asked had to do with taxing the rich extreme rates. What reason does Robert have to reply (without even answering the question at all) in both English and Spanish? It’s quite clear to anyone even half-way paying attention that the guy was simply pandering to the Hispanic vote by basically saying: “Hey, look, I can speak Spanish too!” The only thing that would’ve completed that hysterical moment was if he was holding Uno cards while he was saying that.
 
And while there may be others who disagree with me on this, I find this not only embarrassing for the guy but also kind of insulting. As a Hispanic person, I’m not going to be wooed by someone who happens to know some Spanish (again, he didn’t even speak it perfectly well either). I’m especially not going to be wooed by someone who manages to avoid answering a question in two different languages.
 
Granted, I never had any plans to vote for O’Rourke at any capacity and fully plan on voting for President Trump come the 2020 election, but this was outright asinine.
 
But perhaps not quite as asinine as Julian Castro saying that biological men who transition to (looking) female ought to have the right to an abortion.
 
For some context, NBC News’ Lester Holt had asked the actual Hispanic (and actual lunatic): “Secretary Castro, this one is for you. All of you on stage support a woman’s right to an abortion. You all support some version of a government health care option. Would your plan cover abortion Mr. Secretary?”
 
Castro replied: “Yes, it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman – or let’s not also forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.”
 
Another kind of pandering, particularly because he stopped to also include transgender people. And like O’Rourke’s pandering, this one also doesn’t make any sense (although it does make sense in the mind of a lunatic Leftist who is this out of touch with reality).
 
In case Secretary Castro has forgotten his 3rd grade science class, MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT! It doesn’t matter if a man with gender dysphoria goes through the process of mutilating his body to look like a woman’s, he still cannot biologically get pregnant because he lacks the reproductive equipment to do so. A man may say he is a woman and may even transition into having the body of a woman, but that does not include the transfer of a womb into the new body and the removal of the previous reproductive system.
 
Men can’t get pregnant, and as a result, can also not get an abortion. It literally makes zero sense for Castro to even say this, or for anyone to say this for that matter. And these people think Trump isn’t fit to serve? This guy literally thinks men can get pregnant! Either that or he’s simply trying to pander to out-of-their-minds politically-correct morons in the audience who will say: “Yaaaas! Slay, queen!” entirely unironically. I honestly hope it’s the latter because I would hate for someone that mentally deranged to be within 10 feet of any position of power as grand as the Presidency.
 
Overall, the Democrat debates have proven that the entire field of Democrat candidates is filled with shameless panderers at best and outright deranged people at worst. None of them have proven to mainstream America that they are in any way sane, and that goes beyond the ridiculous (and dangerous) desire to confiscate every gun in America and allow for literally unrestricted abortions. While those two issues demonstrate how out of touch they are with America, it’s the shameless pandering and the open lunacy that tells us what they are all about.
 
Even if I had been a registered Democrat, voted for Hillary in 2016 and despised Trump, I would seriously doubt I would be willing to support any of these people. And I think there are plenty of people out there who think similarly. I mean, O’Rourke is polling at roughly 3%, Castro at less than 1 and everyone else is equally as stupid or deranged.
 
Sure, neither of the two will likely be the Democrat nominee to challenge Trump, but if this is what the Left has to offer, they really do need the tech giants to come in and rig the elections for them because otherwise, Trump would likely win all but one state ala Ronald Reagan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

This is not the first time I decide to focus on the sort of damage climate alarmism causes the general public and I, unfortunately, doubt it’ll be the last. But climate alarmism from the Left, what with all their doomsday predictions and “credible” sources backing up their falsities with fake science, leads people to be so concerned over things that are not happening (extreme weather events and other b.s. the Left spews like a faucet) that they end up literally setting themselves on fire to prove some sort of point (and end up dying as a result) or they end up going on things such as birth strikes to protest “inaction” on climate change.
 
Blythe Pepino, a British woman, founded a climate change activism group surrounding the idea of not having biological children out of fear of “droughts, famine, flooding and extreme heat of the world they will have to live in.”
 
Her group, BirthStrike, amassed over 450 other people vowing to also not have children due to climate change, 80% of which are women, according to Pepino. “For me, personally, it’s about me being able to put my time and resources into activism at the moment,” Pepino told CTV’s Your Morning this past Monday.
 
“I’m lucky enough to have a certain amount of power in this world. I’m white and privileged and I don’t have any children. I don’t have any dependents. And really, this next few years is really, really important in terms of trying to put pressure on our governments to make the big changes that we need for our survival.”
 
What we see here is a victim of the Left’s brainwashing at its fullest. She believes her skin color makes her “privileged” (which is really a sort of back-handed insult to people who are not white, when you think about it, as if minorities can’t possibly be privileged in life either). She also believes that climate change is a human-caused phenomenon and something that definitely wasn’t happening before things like ACs, cars, etc., despite the mountains of evidence to the opposite, namely MULTIPLE ICE AGES AND PERIODS OF WARMTH!
 
That’s not to say I don’t think this woman is sincere about what she believes. I fully believe she believes every word she says and that’s the sad part. She believes she is knowledgeable when she is ignorant. It really reminds me of an excerpt from Plato’s Apology, when Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi, Pythia, that Socrates was “the wisest man alive”. In the Apology, Plato writes: “For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: ‘I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know.’” This is also known as the Socratic Paradox.
 
But my point here is to say that the woman is like the Oracle Socrates was talking about: she thinks she knows, but truly knows nothing. Bear in mind that this is not meant to insult her but to point out how much damage the Left causes people: they are made to not know any better, as they are taught precisely the wrong things.
 
School children are taught that we are killing our planet and we have a certain amount of years left before we all die, a doomsday clock that is reset every few years to keep the hoax alive. If you remember, Al Gore said back in 2006 that the world would be destroyed by climate change in 10 years, prompting Rush Limbaugh to set up a doomsday clock on his website counting down those 10 years until the clock strikes zero. And, of course, nothing happened when the clock ticked all the way down. And now, we have AOC and the U.N.’s IPCC saying we have 11 or 12 years until the world ends due to climate change, and for whatever reason, people like Pepino totally believe them.
 
And as a result of these b.s. doomsday warnings, people come to such life-altering fear that they take it upon themselves to NOT HAVE CHILDREN AS A RESULT OF THIS! Now, to their credit, Pepino’s group is not so whacko as to demand things like China’s old “one-child” policy in order to curve rising population densities. The BirthStrike site says: “BirthStrike stands in compassionate solidarity with all parents, celebrates their choice and doesn’t seek to judge anyone intending to bear children. BirthStrike disagrees with prioritizing population control over system change in regards to tackling the environmental crisis, disagrees with any enforced population control measures and recognizes the colonial violence of such measures having been proposed in the past and present.”
 
So I do have to give them credit for that, but unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who view enforcement of such policies (which would include horrible things like forced abortion) as a means of “solving” climate change and would totally support enforcing such inhumane policies (despite the numerous studies that suggest population control wouldn’t even do anything to climate change). And considering how dire the Left makes this “environmental crisis” sound, people might believe taking desperate measures will be in any way helpful.
 
But the truth is that there are no extreme weather events that can be attributed to being caused by climate change, and any idea of a city flooding because of melting ice caps (something that isn’t even happening) is someone simply not knowing jack about science. Both are things I have already discussed and shown to be true, backed up by science, facts, logic and other sources. All it takes to not buy into the idea we are killing our planet is doing a little bit of research and using your brain a little bit.
 
In any case, while Pepino and everyone else certainly have the right to not have children for whatever reason, and while it is appreciated that they don’t try and force other people to not have children themselves, it is a sad sight to see these people be so cajoled by the anti-scientific research of the Left that their entire lives are altered so significantly.
 
Of course, God is ultimately in control and He decides people’s fate here. If He ordains that Pepino have children, there really isn’t anything that is going to stop Him. If He has chosen her to be part of the elect and eventually become an open Christian, then there is nothing she can do about it. God is the one in control here and He will decide the way people’s lives will go. All we can do on our part is simply pray that He give her wisdom not only to seek the truth about climate change and the evils of the Left but to also find the Truth of Scripture.
 
Proverbs 19:21
“Many are the plans in the mind of man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Late last week, a female British judge “ordered a pregnant woman who reportedly has developmental disabilities and a mood disorder to have an abortion, even though the woman and her mother allegedly strenuously object,” reported The Daily Wire.
 
The Catholic News Agency reported that the pregnant woman in question is 22 weeks pregnant, is described as being “in her twenties”, is Catholic with a mother from Nigeria and “has the mental capacity of a grade school-age child,” according to The Daily Wire. CNA also said: “The woman’s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter.”
 
Justice Nathalie Lieven of the Court of Protection is the one who presided over the ruling and ultimately ordered the abortion, citing: “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion… I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.” But wait, there’s more. Not only is she a massive hypocrite for taking away the woman’s choice on this matter (something that would be considered a cardinal sin for the Left if the ruling had ordered a woman to keep a baby she wouldn’t want), but she then goes on to insult the woman’s intelligence by saying: “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.”
 
So she’s not only a massive hypocrite and murderer but she is also deeply insulting of the woman being ordered to kill her own child. Look, I don’t know the pregnant woman in question on a personal basis (she is unidentified), but if she is adamantly against the order of aborting her own child, I seriously doubt she considered her own baby to be in any way similar to a “nice doll”. I think she understands very well that what she is carrying inside her womb is a baby and that she very much wishes to have said baby and is (or was) heartbroken over the decision from the judge that she had to terminate the baby she wanted to keep.
 
But rejoice, everyone, as the public outcry that resulted from that decision has led the English Court of Appeals to overturn the original judge’s decision.
 
The Catholic News Agency reports that Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson overruled the June 21st decision made by Justice Lieven. The original decision reportedly triggered more than 75,000 people to sign a petition from Right to Life UK asking U.K. Health and Social Care Secretary Matthew Hancock to “intervene in this case, so far as possible, to prevent this gross injustice being inflicted by the State on this family and ensure this woman is not forced to have an abortion.”
 
Bishop John Keenan of the Diocese of Paisley also encouraged people to sign the petition, stating the original ruling “introduces a dangerous new development in the overreach of the power of the state over its citizens.” Another bishop, Bishop John Sherrington of the Archdiocese of Westminster said: “Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes upon her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for the child. In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state. This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers. This case, for which all information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’ when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”
 
Both bishops are absolutely right. That original decision was a gross overreach by the government, not unlike the Chinese communists, in infringing the rights of a woman. But this is the danger of big government. They get to decide what is in your “best interests” should you reportedly lack the mental capacity to apparently make your own decisions (even though the woman is adamantly explaining she wishes to keep her child). The government gets to decide whether or not your child gets to live if you are deemed not capable, in any way, of taking care of the child, which is seriously moronic. “Well, you see, Karen, you are incapable of making decisions for yourself and would not be able to properly take care of your child, so we’re gonna have to kill it for ya, how does that sound?” That’s the sort of logic trail people like Lieven (not even going to include her title since there was no justice at all in her decision) use when it comes to abortion: better the baby be killed than it perhaps live a poor life even with the chance to live a good one.
 
It’s not only asinine, it’s outright demonic. It’s the sort of thing pagan cultures would do on a regular basis: child sacrifice. And like pagan cultures, these pro-abortion people in the government do it to please false gods: themselves.
 
How is it in the woman’s best interests to force her to eliminate a child she wants to keep? May I also remind you of the fact that the woman, among developmental disabilities, also has a mood disorder? Meaning that there is an even greater chance of sending the woman into a deep depression upon forcing her to eliminate her own child. So how exactly is that decision being made in the woman’s “best interests”?
 
The answer, of course, is it’s not. It’s acting in the government’s best interests, as they are the ones who also get paid for the abortion occurring in the first place at one of the government-owned abortion facilities. It’s also acting in the government’s best interests by setting a precedent for this sort of thing. If the government wishes to eliminate your child for whatever reason and you say no, well there’s really nothing you can do because the government would’ve had this decision as a basis for future decisions. Granted, I highly doubt this is the first time the U.K. government has forced a woman to eliminate her child, but this could’ve still set a very dangerous precedent moving forward.
 
Of course, the government, if unchecked, will do whatever it wants regardless of precedent, but it is good that this issue was so widely talked about to the point higher judges in the U.K. legal system had to intervene.
 
But this is merely a preview for where the Left wishes to take us next. The only reason being “pro-choice” is so popular is because people like having a choice as to what to do. But as we can see from this example, there are plenty of people on the Left who are not “pro-choice” at all if the choice being made is not the “right one” in their minds. You don’t get to choose what school to send your kids to, you don’t get to choose what politician you want to win elections (*ahem* Google *ahem* the Obama administration *ahem*), you don’t get to choose to follow your religious beliefs if it is perceived that they are discriminatory to someone else, and as was the case for this pregnant woman, she did not have the choice to keep her child apparently because she’s too stupid, in the mind of the government, to keep her child and live a good and happy life.
 
These people aren’t about choice but dominance. There is a very good reason I said they view themselves as gods in the comparison with pagan cultures who would perform child sacrifices. They see themselves as gods in control of everything and everyone, or at least they believe they ought to be given said control. I’ve said this before, but it’s plenty relevant right now: for people who claim not to believe in God, they sure try hard to be like one.
 
But thanks be to God that He reigns supreme and the forces of evil could not take the life of an unborn child this time. Thank the Lord that He caused this story to be so widely spread and found so horrid that higher Justices in the U.K. legal system were moved to intervene in this matter. I just hope this serves as a wake-up call for the people of the U.K.: their government has gotten too big for their own good if they can force abortions on women who don’t want them.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Back in late 2018, a story came out about a Portland State University professor and his two colleagues (above) writing “hoax” research papers, about 20 of them, sending them to be peer-reviewed, edited and published, and successfully published 7 of those hoax papers.
 
The hoax papers discussed insane topics such as rape culture in dog parks, fat bodybuilding, and toxic masculinity in “breastaurants” like Hooters, as well as others, and were ultimately reviewed and published by esteemed academic journals despite a distinct lack of facts to support the arguments being made.
 
The three professors, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay referred to their little hoax project as an analysis of “grievance studies”, suspecting that some fields in academia have focused more on “ideologically-motivated scholarship” rather than the pursuit of scientific fact or truth.
 
In an essay in which the trio announced this project, they wrote: “Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.”
 
The three professors received worldwide support for their work to expose the problems of academic research. Campus Reform sent Mark McLellan, PSU’s vice president for research and graduate studies, a public records request for his e-mails that had to do with what Boghossian did. Campus Reform gathered thousands of e-mails from all over the world addressed to McLellan in support of Boghossian.
 
One notable e-mail came from Alan Sokal, a physicist teaching at New York University who had actually done something similar to Boghossian back in 1996 with an article titled: “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” To the normal person, what Sokal wrote might seem confusing but might be taken as the truth, given it’s an academic paper. But to any scientist or mathematician that knows his stuff, they’d be able to tell that what is in the paper is utter garbage. Sokal himself said: “Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously… In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently, the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.”
 
But despite the honestly good work the three professors did, at the very least Professor Boghossian is likely to be punished, as he was placed under investigation and was found guilty of research misconduct by the Internal Review Board. Boghossian was accused, and later found guilty of, fabricating data and studying human subjects, specifically the journal editors, without their consent. While technically that is what he did, the guilty verdict is ridiculous. The fabrication of data served entirely to prove a point, a point that was further proven not only by the actual publishing of this data, but by the response from the IRB and PSU, that academic journals hold the responsibility of sticking faithfully to data and to the facts, despite of the topic being discussed, but many do not actually do that.
 
The fact that Boghossian will be punished for EXPOSING the fact that academic journals don’t do their due diligence in verifying the claims being made in the articles shows us just how truly rotten the system is. If the article says something supposedly “woke”, such as perpetuating a “rape culture” in DOGS VISITING DOG PARKS IN PORTLAND, then whatever is used to “prove” the thesis is irrelevant. Much in the same way as a paper that claims illegal immigrants commit less crimes than American citizens, if the thesis is “woke” and SJW-friendly, then facts be damned. This is the point professors were trying to prove, that ideologically-motivated papers, even if entirely fictitious, will be approved and spread as “truth”, goes entirely against what scientists, real scientists, are trying to do: find and discuss what is actually TRUE.
 
For example, let’s take a look at an article from Breitbart about a high school kid in Scotland being suspended for saying that there are only two genders. Despite the fact that science is behind the kid, the 17-year-old was suspended for saying something that is not “inclusive” aka something that is not part of the “right-think” of the British school system. The teacher and the entire school board do a disservice to society not only by banning a dissenting thought, but also perpetuating the idea that there are more than two genders when the truth and facts completely disagree with that.
 
Whether someone says they are a different gender from what they are is entirely up to them. If a man wants to claim he is a woman, fine. But let’s not distort what science says about genders. Let’s not throw away the fact that our chromosomes dictate what gender we are. For the thousandth time, an XY set of chromosomes makes someone a male and an XX set of chromosomes makes someone a female. There is no third option, there is no destroying this fact. To challenge this proven scientific concept is to challenge reality and truth itself, all in the vein effort to be more “inclusive”. No one benefits from destroying science.
 
The three professors wanted to stick to the idea that science is the pursuit of truth about different things in our universe (which is why I so often say that science and faith are not mutually exclusive but often work together, as we study the creation) and challenged the unscientific views some, if not most people within academic journals hold with regard to what is truth.
 
In essence, those in academic journals take a Pontius Pilate sort of stance of: “what is truth?” They believe truth is subjective when it is, in fact, objective and as such, see actual science as an enemy while pretending to be in favor of “science” that “shows” them to be right about things like climate change (of course, they are entirely wrong there too) and the theory of evolution (which they dropped the “theory” part and pass it off as fact, an entirely unscientific thing to do).
 
While the professors ought to be commended for their work to IMPROVE the academic journals’ research and publishing standards to not pass off what is essentially SJW-feeding crap as truth, they are more likely to be punished for it than anything else.
 
The reason for which is likely not simply the ones being given to us: that they gave false data, conducted research on people who did not consent to it (which is the point of a project to expose something like this). The reason is likely so that academic research papers can continue to be useful for Leftists who use it as “arguments” against people who actually have science and reason behind them. It’s no secret that academia belongs to the Left. As such, they get to control what kind of “information” is published in academia, to certain extents. Rogue professors that expose the heavily-biased nature of at least some people within the academic journals are counterintuitive to the purpose of academic journals. So those professors must be punished for exposing the truth in an effort to keep these things in the dark in the future.
 
Luke 8:17
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

One particular quirk about the fake news media that I seriously dislike but sometimes find deliciously ironic and hypocritical is the fact that they will always attack Trump no matter what he does. And late last week, they did that again, regardless of what Trump had been planning on doing or what he actually ended up doing when it came to the situation surrounding Iran.
 
As I suspect many of you know, late last week, President Donald Trump had originally ordered a strike on multiple different Iranian targets like radar stations and missile batteries, but ultimately decided to pull out of that strike 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
 
Despite the fact that he decided AGAINST bombing Iran, the fake news media and (perhaps rather predictably) the war-hawks of the NeverTrump movement berated the President for his inaction, with many trying to compare him with Obama and his “red-line” comments regarding Syria and overall inaction against a terrorist group the former POTUS called a "JV team". However, this is, obviously, a very dumb comparison.
 
Regarding ISIS, Trump was FAR stronger in dealing with them, considering they basically hold no territory anymore compared to the entire caliphate they owned while Obama was President. Trump DESTROYED ISIS, not that you would know if you were watching the fake news media. Even with Syria, Trump actually DID SOMETHING. Remember the missile strikes back in April of 2017? That's what Obama SHOULD have done, but Trump ultimately did.
 
But attacking Iran would definitely launch us into yet another costly and unnecessary war in the Middle East, which, considering Iran’s alliance with Russia, could also have the potential to escalate into World War III. And for what? Some oil tankers and a drone getting destroyed? No actual casualties in any of the situations?
 
Like Trump said on Twitter, such a strike against Iran would’ve been disproportionate to the next to harmless acts of Iran. It’d be like beating someone up because they shoved you a little.
 
Here’s what Trump said following the reporting of his decision to not attack Iran:
 
“President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran – gave them 150 billion dollars plus 1.8 billion dollars in CASH! Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to nuclear weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are bust! On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!”
 
So what is it we are looking at here? Well, first, the President is rightly pointing out the fact that Iran is very much in the position they are today because Obama basically bailed them out and let them have a path to nuclear weapons (which I’m certain they currently have) in a deal that was not constitutional but everyone was too afraid to actually fight Obama on this terrible deal.
 
This is important to note because one of the arguments being made by the Left and the MSM is that Iran destroyed the oil tankers and the drone because we pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Obviously, that’s asinine. If that were the reason, they would’ve attacked shortly after the deal was terminated, not over a year later. If the reason for those attacks were because the Iranians are mad that Trump actually stood up to them and did not let them have their nuclear deal anymore, then this is one hell of a slow reaction to that.
 
The second thing we are looking at here is the very reason for not striking Iran: 150 people would’ve died in comparison to not a single one on our side. That’s not to say we should wait until someone gets killed by the Iranians to act. But that is to say the actions we partake shouldn’t be rash. Let’s not bomb Iran just because they destroyed a couple of oil tankers and an unmanned drone. Sanctions against Iran have been working pretty well, haven’t they? Like Trump said, Iran is far weaker today than a few years ago. That’s because the U.S. is applying the most sanctions it ever has on a country. And now, they are desperate.
 
But notice how the media is portraying this: they are comparing him to Obama’s inaction against ISIS, Syria and Russia. Again, it’s nothing like that. But what do you think the media portrayal would’ve been had Trump not called off the strike? Would they have said that he was tougher than Obama because he didn’t pull out of the strike? OF COURSE NOT! They would’ve compared him to Bush and ran the same tired stories about how we were bombing innocent children and families in Afghanistan and comparing this to that. They are convinced Trump is a war-hawk, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the fact he did not actually strike Iran goes against their narrative.
 
Trump promised we would not enter a war while he was President. So far, he’s the only president to actually stick to such a promise. Remember when Obama promised he would pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember how he did not do that and almost pulled us into a war with Syria on top of the other two wars we were already having? Trump, unlike Obama, doesn’t really care for the military industrial complex if it means that war is necessary. War is not necessary, for the most part. There are times, yes, when war is necessary. The Revolutionary War, for example. But war is usually unnecessary, especially if the reason for it is a couple of ships and a drone being destroyed but no casualties actually being tallied.
 
Now, another argument Leftists make is that Trump was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left to ask how many casualties there would be or he was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left until the strike to actually call it off. Both are arguments being made right now and both are equally dumb.
 
Regarding the first argument, we don’t know if he waited until there were only 10 minutes left to ask how many casualties there would’ve been. We only know that he asked how many there would be and that he called it off 10 minutes before the strike, citing those reasons. My guess is that he asked prior to those ten minutes how many casualties there’d be and he mulled it over, ultimately concluding such casualties would be an overreaction on our part, calling it off as a result.
 
Now, I know what the Leftists in the audience (if there even are any) are saying: “Well, that’s even worse! He considered killing 150 people but only ultimately decided not to because he has no idea what he’s doing!” To which I say: that’s insanely idiotic. I do think Trump was mulling it over, but likely only because he has war-hawks advising him as to what they ought to do. For as much as I love John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, they are both war-hawks. Sometimes, it’s good to have such people advising you, because they’re likely to offer the best advice if you are looking to be strong in a war. But such people are not very interested in ending one.
 
Killing 150 Iranians would’ve been an overreaction considering what little Iran did by comparison. When it comes to Iran, we hold all the cards. Getting pulled into a war would dilute that advantage. And while I have no doubt we would win a war against Iran, it’s entirely unnecessary to get into one in the first place.
 
President Trump isn’t “weak” because he pulled out of striking Iran. Again, he was plenty strong against ISIS and the results show. And he launched strikes against Syrian targets when the Syrian government gassed their OWN PEOPLE. He’s not weak. He’s just a rational person who knows that killing 150 people just because they destroyed two oil tankers and a drone, which can all be replaced, would be a gross overreaction. And even the MSM would’ve said so, had Trump not called off the strike.
 
Trust me, we are all better off not having attacked Iran over this. If Iran truly wants a war, then they’ll have to throw the first punch. Destroying oil tankers and a drone, and then waiting on forensic evidence to be done to determine who attacked the tankers, not claiming responsibility for it after it happened and claiming they had the right to destroy the drone as it was “over Iranian airspace” is not indicative of a country that really wants a war. If they did, they would’ve claimed responsibility for the oil tankers and would’ve said “so what if we destroyed a drone over international air space? Fight me”. Beyond that, they would’ve done far worse damage than that.
 
Iran doesn’t want a war. They want to talk to Trump to remove the sanctions and believe attacking U.S. property will give them some leverage in negotiations.
 
But we’ll see what happens as things progress, of course. I could be totally wrong here and things could escalate to an actual war, but I don’t think I’m wrong here.
 
Romans 12:18
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

I have the distinct feeling that slave reparations will become the Democrat Party’s key issue going forward, particularly for the 2020 election. Considering the record-low unemployment rates for minorities and the fact that people are honestly rather tired of the Left calling Trump a racist day in and day out, the Left needs something relating to black people that they can try and use against Trump. And that something is slave reparations, where the idea is that tax payer money would be redistributed from white people, especially those at the top 1% and given to black people in whatever way they may think of.
 
Now, if you’ve been reading our articles for a very long time, you would know our current stance on this issue: if people want slave reparations, the DNC ought to be made to pay. In an article from February of 2017, this site published the following article: “Slavery Reparations? Sue The DNC!” And in that article, we laid out the case as to why, if people want slavery reparations, the Democrats ought to be the ones paying for it.
 
After all, it was THE DEMOCRATS who fought a WAR to keep their slaves; it was the DEMOCRATS who largely fought for segregation and it’s the DEMOCRATS who are responsible for 20 million unborn black babies being slaughtered and targeted by Planned Parenthood.
 
Those who know and understand the history of our country know this perfectly well, and it looks like former NFL player Burgess Owens understands this as well.
 
During the House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing discussing slave reparations, Burgess Owens said the following:
 
“I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race. I do believe in restitution. Let’s point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40% of our black babies, 20 million of them.”
 
He continued: “State of California, 75% of our black boys cannot pass standard reading and writing tests: a Democratic state. So yes, let’s pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race and those – after we learn our history – who decide to stay here, they should pay also. They are complicit. And every white American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of your white skin, you should need to pony up also. That way we can get past this reparation and recognize that this country has given us greatness. Look at this panel. Doesn’t matter how we think. Doesn’t matter our color. We have become successful in this country like no other because of this great opportunity to live the American dream. Let’s not steal that from our kids by telling them they can’t do it.”
 
Absolutely fantastic points that he brings up. And let me tell you, the minute white people who feel guilty for the color of their skin are actually made to pay for slavery reparations is the minute white guilt all of a sudden ceases to exist. Because what these people believe is that black people ought to be paid reparations for slavery, but they shouldn’t be the ones to pay the bulk of the bill. The 1% and just about everyone else ought to be made to pay reparations.
 
Which is why I so often call people like Bernie Sanders hypocrites. He owns three huge homes and is a millionaire. Why, if he believes in reparations for slavery, doesn’t he just give away those houses to some poor black people? After all, no one needs to own three houses, right? No one needs to own such massive homes, particularly when only two people are living in them, right?
 
If slave reparations are to be paid, the paying party ought not be the American people, but the Democrat Party which has a LONG history of utter racism and hatred for those who are different from them, in whatever way that may be. Again, the DEMOCRATS fought for slavery, fought for segregation and currently make it their mission to eliminate as many black people as possible through abortions that they want less and less restricted.
 
The Democrats are the ones who founded the Ku Klux Klan. The Democrats are the ones who literally seceded from the nation because they lost an election to the very first Republican; to a party that was founded precisely to end slavery. And the Democrats are the ones who, today, continue to take advantage of black people (and truth be told, they take advantage of whomever they can, but black people especially).
 
I distinctly remember something another former sports star said some time ago, back in 2015. Former NBA player Charles Barkley famously said: “Black people have been voting for Democrats their whole life, and they’re still poor,” on “The Dan Patrick Show”.
 
Now, while Barkley is still somewhat of a Democrat, and has largely voted Democrat throughout his life, he at least understands how full of it Democrats (and plenty of Republicans) are when it comes to poor people and black people. The Democrats’ very history is that of racism, starting from the very first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, pushing and signing into law the Indian Removal Act of 1829, which served as the basis for the infamous Trail of Tears. Let’s not forget that he was also very openly racist (yes, at a time when it was more socially acceptable to do so, but the point still stands) in his hatred for Native Americans, saying: “The whole Cherokee nation ought to be scourged,” after the Cherokee tribes refused to leave their land upon the passing of the Indian Removal Act.
 
All throughout American history, we see the Democrat Party either literally fighting to exterminate Native Americans (of which Jackson would often brag about), literally fighting to keep their “right” to own slaves or, at best, being split on the issue of segregation, all-the-while Planned Parenthood continues its mission to exterminate minorities.
 
So if anyone ought to pay slavery reparations, it ought to be the party that actually FOUGHT TO KEEP SLAVES IN THE FIRST PLACE! Beyond that, I think they also ought to pay Native Americans reparations for the literal genocide the party embarked upon in the 1830s. Let those who actually have historically had a hand in the misery of black people pay the price. Let those who claim to feel guilty because they are white and that somehow means they receive better treatment pay these reparations to black people.
 
If slave reparations are really where we are headed, then let’s make the Democrats pay for it. Never mind the fact that slavery ended over a hundred years ago. Never mind the fact that segregation ended over 50 years ago. Never mind the fact that racial problems in America are nowhere near as bad today as they were back then. If this country is still going to pretend it is bad, then let those who actually have their fingerprints on those bad things be the ones to pay the price. That’s not white people in general, and certainly not Republicans like Trump. That would be the very Democrats who use this topic as a political tool to score some points because Trump has them beat pretty much everywhere else.
 
So sure, let there be reparations. And let’s make the Democrats pay for it.
 
Revelation 21:8
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murders, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

A few of months ago, Democrat candidates began their own races to the Democrat nomination in an effort to unseat President Trump come November of 2020. Part of the big headlines that were made apart from the actual announcements by the various candidates was just how much money they all raised in the span of a single day and even a single quarter.
 
For example, former Vice President Joe Biden made headlines for having raised $6.3 million on the first day of his candidacy. Failed Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke raised almost as much, at $6.1 million in his first day. Lunatic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-USSR) raised $5.9 million in his first day.
 
And in the first quarter, Joe Biden bragged about having raised almost $20 million in that time span, in a fundraiser full of Wall Street donors, saying: “With your help, you’re going to allow me to be able to compete in a way that I’ve never been able to do before. We’ve raised a great deal of money.”
 
Well, if we are to consider money raised as a sign of excitement and enthusiasm for a candidate (and we will), then I suppose raising $24.8 MILLION in the span of 24 hours is a pretty great sign of enthusiasm.
 
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted: “[Trump] has raised a record breaking $24.8M in less than 24 hours for his re-election. The enthusiasm across the country for this President is unmatched and unlike anything we’ve ever seen!”
 
Tim Murtaugh, the Director of Communications for the President’s 2020 campaign also tweeted: “Jaw-dropping numbers from the 24 hours of the day [Trump] announced his re-election campaign: $24.8 million raised. Do the math: that’s more than a million dollars an hour for an entire day. On top of an electric rally in Orlando, this shows huge Trump enthusiasm.”
 
And that last part also brings up a very good point: Trump has been filling up whole stadiums ever since 2016 and that doesn’t seem to have changed at all.
 
The President announced his bid for re-election in Orlando, Florida, in the Amway Center. That’s the same Amway Center where the Orlando Magic, an NBA team, play. And let’s not forget that back in October of last year, while holding rallies for Republican candidates for the midterm elections in Houston, Texas, Trump also filled up the Toyota Center, where the Houston Rockets, another NBA team, play.
 
The President fills up entire stadiums where sports teams play, while Democrat candidates struggle to fill out their own areas for speaking.
 
Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Well, Trump is the incumbent in this race. Of course he’s going to raise more money and fill up more seats. He’s the only Republican running!” And you would be correct in your thinking if it weren’t for the fact that this has basically been a trend ever since 2015, when Trump first announced his candidacy. He was still drawing huge crowds and raising plenty of money, despite the fact there were another 16 or so candidates also running.
 
There’s no doubt that Trump holds an advantage as the incumbent and being the only Republican running, but if Trump were in as much trouble as multiple polls claim he is, the amount of enthusiasm shown in Orlando alone wouldn’t have been quite as much.
 
The people of Orlando, as well as just about everyone who voted for Trump in 2016, still know for sure that CNN sucks, that Hillary Clinton should be locked up (and honestly, so should Barack Obama) and that we need to build the wall (which Trump is working very hard to do but there’s only so much he can do without Congressional help, something that falls on both parties). So the people who supported Trump in 2016 are still here, and more are likely to show out to vote, considering who he is running against and what he has had to face in the last couple of years.
 
Even The Daily Wire’s Erick Erickson tweeted that he’d rather vote for Trump (don’t know if he did in 2016, but I doubt it as he has always been a NeverTrumper to some extent) than for any of the “baby-killing socialists”, as he put it, currently running on the Democrat ticket.
 
Given that I have already stated that I believe this race will, in large part, be about the very soul of this nation, I think there will be some people who look at what the Democrats are running on – higher taxes, “free” everything which only leads to higher taxes, restricted free speech for political opponents of the Left, restricted religious freedom for bakery shop owners, legalizing actual infanticide, forcing female students to compete with males, etc. – and recognize the actual threat these people possess and come to the realization that they ought to be as far from political office as one can get. Because for all of people’s personal gripes with Trump (which are entirely petty, but to each their own), he is Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and George Washington put together on steroids in comparison to Karl Marx’s All-Star team of Democrat candidates.
 
All of this is yet another reason not to trust the fake MSM polls that show what the Left hopes is reality. Never mind that these polls showed even worse numbers for Trump all throughout the 2016 campaign and were all incredulously wrong, never mind that the polls always tend to over-sample Democrats, an already well-known tactic used by Democrat pollsters, never mind that these are the same people who claimed for two and a half years that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 Presidential election away from Hillary without any actual evidence, salivating at the idea that they might one day actually get something solid so they could impeach Trump. The fact that Donald Trump has raised a record-breaking amount of money for a single day as a candidate, far beating out their original $7 million goal and far beating out Joe Biden’s numbers from an entire quarter, AND he is still filling out entire stadiums used for sporting events shows the amount of enthusiasm for Trump hasn’t wavered in the least.
 
Of course, as I’ve been saying for some time now, it’s still too early to determine anything happening right now as being a big factor in 2020. An awful lot of things can change from here and Trump will eventually be facing one candidate, not making generalizations about what the Democrats are proposing (which he still can do if Biden is A) the nominee as most people expect him to be and B) runs on the same socialist crap all the others are running on because he’s a serial plagiarizer and does not have the mental capacity to formulate a single original thought).
 
But as things stand currently, Trump is off to a pretty great start for his re-election bid. I just hope and pray things stay like this and even get better as we go forward.
 
1 Timothy 2:1-4
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

I hold the belief that the 2020 election cycle will be about the following things: immigration, the economy, and the very soul of this country. Granted, the first two things are usual in elections, especially in this day and age, but that last one ought to make people realize just what it is we are facing.
 
Much like 2016, we are at a crossroads: we either elect a conservative like Trump, who loves America, or we elect a socialist like (insert literally any of the Democrats currently running), who hates America as it was founded and wishes to turn it into a nation where the government controls just about everything aka a socialist country.
 
And if you’ve been keeping up with multiple polls, you see the terrifying rise of people who consider socialism to be better than capitalism. While those people are still the minority (roughly 40%), the trends are seemingly terrifying. But there is good reason I say “seemingly” in that sentence.
 
You see, according to Rasmussen, 84% of people have a favorable opinion of free markets and 41% say the same about socialism.
 
It is at this point that your brain might be trying to do some seriously challenging mental gymnastics to understand the logic behind that. The vast majority of people like free markets, but about 41% also like socialism? That doesn’t make any sense! And if we were strictly talking about economic ideologies, then yes, you would be correct. But that is not what we are talking about.
 
Before I get to that, however, let’s look at all the numbers.
 
Within the poll that talked about free markets, 87% of Republicans favored it, 85% of Independents said the same as did 81% of Democrats.
 
“Voters strongly believe that Free Markets are better than Socialism when it comes to promoting economic growth (55% to 12%), creating quality jobs (52% to 13%), and giving everyone a chance to succeed (44% to 19%),” according to Rasmussen. “Voters give Free Markets a more modest advantage on helping people in poverty reach the middle class (37% to 22%), creating a fair society (35% to 25%), and reducing poverty (33% to 24%). Voters are close to evenly divided on which system will be better at reducing health care costs: 30% say free markets and 26% socialism. However, it’s worth noting that there is very little support for requiring all Americans to get health insurance through a government program.”
 
So what is it that we are looking at here? We’re looking at people who, economically, agree with capitalistic, free market ideologies, but don’t think socialism is the opposite of those things. They don’t view socialism through the lenses of economic ideology, like you and I do, but through the lenses of the government being an avenue capable of helping people who are in need. They like the idea of government-issued health insurance like Obamacare, but largely do not like the idea of that being the only option.
 
So what we have here are a bunch of people who are largely misguided as to what socialism actually is. The definition of socialism/communism is the government being the one who owns the means of production. Meaning there is no such thing as private property because the government controls and/or regulates everything, from your home, to your car, to your job, to your phone. Absolutely everything is controlled and regulated by the government. You cannot get something that is outside of the government’s control. It’s part of the reason China is so adamant about getting Google to censor things in that region for their citizens.
 
But as we can plainly see, that is not the definition self-proclaimed socialist voters tend to follow. Matter of fact, when it comes to the economy, the less government involvement, the better. This is something even those “socialists” believe in, as we can see from how many people, INCLUDING DEMOCRATS, prefer free markets over socialism.
 
For the record, these self-proclaimed socialists do not include people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They know perfectly well what socialism is, that’s why they’re in the government. They get to expand their own power if they back socialism and in turn, deceive others as to what socialism is to make it more appealing. Why else do you think they adamantly avoid talking about Venezuela and even California? Apart from being precise examples as to what socialism does to a country or even a state, they will often claim that that’s not “real” socialism, and that “real socialism” has never actually been tried.
 
Of course, that’s a load of garbage, but people will believe it. That’s why there are people who call themselves socialists but will often times support capitalistic economic policies. They don’t truly know what socialism is.
 
Not that I blame them for their ignorance. Socialism was not really a topic that was covered when I was in school (likely because the term itself was still fairly taboo at the time) and I wouldn’t have learned about socialism had I not done my own research or talked with family about politics. Granted, I also have the advantage of having lived in a fairly socialistic country before (I’ll take “words that have never been spoken before in the history of the world” for 1000, Alex), so I know what socialism is like in a sort of first-hand manner, but still. Schools don’t tend to teach about socialism, and if they do, they don’t actually teach what it really is and what it has led to.
 
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if people knew what socialism truly was, most people would completely drop it. We know this because Scott Rasmussen himself, in a recent interview with The Daily Signal, said that “only 1 out of 3 people who say they like socialism think it leads to higher taxes and a more powerful government.”
 
Meaning only 1 out of 3 people who say they like socialism actually know what socialism is. Still a scarily high number, but taking that in relation with just about everyone in the country, and the percentage of people who both like socialism and know what it is shows to be far lower than what polls show. That’s 33% out of the 41% of people who support socialism - that's only 13.5% people. One can easily see how truly few people there are out there who want to see this country be turned into the Soviet Union.
 
But for the most part, the vast majority of Americans far prefer the current economic system we have of free market economics, regardless of political party affiliation or political ideology. Most people are free-market capitalists and simply see government as an option, not as a deterrent, to that system. Really, that’s where the problem lies, as the more government there is, the less individual freedoms there are, including economic freedoms, and the task is really to educate people as to what socialism truly is (and most people are shocked when they find out what it really is, so that tells you something).
 
Of course, another problem comes in the fact that these people, despite their own personal opinions, will vote for those who actually are socialists and will implement actual socialist policies that intrude on people’s economic freedoms (and other types of freedoms) and that can cause severe harm to the country. The task then becomes properly defining socialism and exposing the fact that the people running for office are not the same kind of socialist the people voting for them claim to be. Bernie Sanders wants Medicare for All in the form of only the government being the option for health insurance. A lot of people like the term “Medicare for All” because it suggests an option for people to take, but recoil when they learn that it would actually take away people’s options for health insurance.
 
Actual socialism is not popular in this country, but what needs to be done is to properly define socialism. Most people who claim to be socialists aren’t actually socialists. They are just as capitalistic as you and me, just view the government as a force for good and not as a force for evil that can destroy economic and other kinds of freedom.
 
I just hope we can properly define socialism for the vast majority of Americans before we turn into Venezuela.
 
Colossians 2:8
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

A little over a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how there was no link between extreme weather phenomenon and man-made climate change. Well, today, let’s talk about another ridiculous claim that the Left often makes: climate change leads to rising sea levels and will mean coastal cities will be flooded in a certain amount of time unless we employ more and more socialistic policies to “turn this around”.
 
When you put it that way, it’s hard to deny how much it looks like a scam… because that’s precisely what it is. And yet, many people buy into the idea that we are killing our planet through our cars and our air conditioners and our capitalism (somehow, despite China being one of the most egregious polluters in the world) and that in a certain amount of decades, places like Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, etc. will be uninhabitable for humans and land animals because they will be flooded.
 
This sort of cycle continues, as we still hear about this idiocy despite the fact that people have made predictions for today that are exactly like that and have failed to come true, such as Dr. James Hansen predicting back in the late 1980s that New York City’s West Side Highway would be under water within 20 years. Not quite sure why he chose to be so specific, but whatever the reason may be, he was obviously very wrong as it has been about 30 years since the late 1980s and no such thing has happened.
 
However, a recent study has shown that “trends in recent rates of shoreline change along the U.S. Atlantic Coast reflect an especially puzzling increase in accretion, not erosion,” according to Armstrong and Lazarus (2019) in a newly-published paper.
 
Notice the sort of language these guys are using. They are totally baffled at the idea that shorelines are actually expanding, because they are under the belief that sea levels are rising, which would naturally lead people to believe that shorelines would have to be decreasing. The authors try to attribute this “enigmatic pattern” to “beach nourishment” or infrastructure development to explain how this is happening even though sea levels are supposed to be rising.
 
As Climate Depot notes, “From 1830 to 1956, shorelines eroded at the rapid rate of -55 cm per year on average. Since 1960, the U.S. Atlantic coast has been expanding (accretion) at a rate of +5 cm per year.”
 
The real reason for this happening is not “beach nourishment” but rather because any scientist who is not paid off to spew Leftist garbage knows that geophysical processes are the reason for such sea-level variations throughout the entire world, not idiotic beliefs like glaciers melting causing there to be more water in the ocean.
 
Which really brings us to the main point this article is meant to tackle: the idea that melting ice caps (which are actually doing the opposite of melting) would cause sea levels to rise and coastal areas to get flooded. Anyone who has passed 6th grade science ought to know that ice is water in a different form and that melting of ice does not cause there to be more water out of nowhere.
 
For example, fill a glass with ice and then fill it with water just before it begins to overflow. Leave that glass of water with ice alone until the ice melts (or put it in the microwave if you’re impatient) and see the results. According to the Left, the glass will overflow because the ice will melt. However, what we notice is something entirely different: the glass is still just as full as it was before, there was no overflow, but now there’s just no ice. That is because ICE IS WATER TOO! It’s just in a different physical state, but it will still take up the exact same amount of space. Whatever space the ice cube was filling before is replaced with the water that the cube was composed of. There is no displacement of water, so there is no overflowing of the glass.
 
How then, if the ice caps were to melt, would the world get flooded when all the melting of the ice does is change the physical state of the ice from a solid to a liquid?
 
What’s more, has any of these Leftists ever heard of the water cycle? You know, the cycle where water evaporates, goes into the atmosphere, precipitates as rain or snow (depending on the temperature), goes down into sewers, rivers, etc., makes its way back to the ocean and begins the cycle anew? Well, if the ice caps were melting, that means some of the ice would be turned into a gas too, go into the atmosphere and go through the process we just described, so there technically would be a little bit less water than when it was in its ice form anyway.
 
But returning to my main point, it is ridiculous to suggest that the ice caps melting (which isn’t even happening, for God’s sake) would in turn lead to coastal cities to get flooded. That’s not how any of this works.
 
If you don’t believe me, just ask Christopher Piecuch, Peter Huybers and literally six other scientists saying: “the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries.”
 
Climate change does not lead to rising sea levels. Trends in sea levels, whichever way they may go, have more to do with geological processes than climate change.
 
And if the study by the seemingly baffled scientists is in any way accurate, then we can clearly see this to be the case. Now, if you were to ask me exactly how it’s happening, then I have no clue. I’m not a geologist by any means. But I do understand enough about the world to know that it’s completely asinine to say that melting ice caps and glaciers, etc. would lead to massive cities getting flooded. Science itself denies that this is at all possible, never mind that shorelines around the world have been in a trend of growth for a number of decades.
 
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations showed that coasts all over the world have gained roughly 13,000 km2 more land area than it had lost to the ocean, according to scientists back in 2016. So all over the world, coasts have only gained land, not lost to the ocean.
 
Now just watch as the Left will spin that as “we are warming the planet up so much, we are drying up the oceans”. I wouldn’t put it past them to start claiming such a thing.
 
Psalm 36:3
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

This is far from the first time I have written about Hispanics supporting Donald Trump at any capacity. Given that I, myself, am Hispanic, I can at least fairly decently relate with credibility why it is that Hispanics are so willing to support the President. But to entitled Leftist elitists who view minorities as voting mules, Trump being supported by as many Hispanics as previous Republican candidates/presidents makes absolutely zero sense.
 
Take David Drucker from the Washington Examiner for example. While I wouldn’t necessarily call him a Leftist per se (what I have seen from him doesn’t paint him with the same brush as pretty much everyone else on the MSM), he does appear surprised at the fact that Trump is rather popular with Hispanics. In fact, the title of his article I will be quoting from is: “Hispanics stick with Trump despite tough border stance”.
 
Now, to me, I find that rather hilarious. “Despite” tough border stance? Try BECAUSE of tough border stance.
 
Keep in mind that exit polls back in 2016 showed that Trump garnered 28% of the Hispanic vote, which is admittedly lower than it is today. 28% is around the support other Republicans have received from the Hispanic population. Mitt Romney back in 2012 got 27% of the Hispanic vote.
 
So while you can attribute a strong economy causing his support to grow (something I do as well), there was still a decent portion of the Hispanic population that voted for Trump despite the fact he hadn’t done anything for the economy just yet (naturally, having not been POTUS at the time). Also keep in mind that his entire campaign centered around illegal immigration and building a wall at the southern border.
 
So you would think people would be able to figure out that a tough border stance is not detrimental for Trump when it comes to Hispanics. WE ARE TOUGH ON THE BORDER TOO!
 
But here’s what Drucker said specifically in his rather short article. He starts by noting that Trump’s initial remarks upon launching his campaign “mortified” Republicans, establishment and otherwise, fearing that nominating Trump, let alone electing him, would doom the GOP with the Hispanics. He also notes that it hasn’t quite worked out that way, given he has support around 30%, give or take depending on the poll.
 
Even Daniel Garza, a Koch brothers minion and former Bush official said: “[Trump] starts in a much better place for reelection than when he launched his 2016 campaign. One would think immigration would be a major anchor for him, but he’s turned it into at least a push.” Even Drucker notes that Garza’s comments are quite the turnaround from what he said back in 2015, shortly after Trump launched his campaign: “His positions are indefensible. I would actually rise up against him.”
 
In any case, Drucker then continues by citing a YouGov poll that shows Trump’s job approval rating among Hispanics sits around 29% and on immigration, which is, in Drucker’s mind “presumably a tougher issue for the president with this demographic”, is at 30%. Drucker then notes that 30% is rather usual for Republicans, as around 30% of Hispanics tend to be “die-hard Republicans”, as Joe Heck, a former Nevada congressman who usually was popular with Hispanics noted.
 
And then Drucker supposedly warns Trump and conservatives that roughly 30% is “dangerously low for competitive contests”, saying that “it can leave Republicans too reliant on the white vote, the largest segment of the voting population nationally but one that is declining.”
 
But wait, didn’t Trump get 28% in 2016? And wasn’t Hillary supposed to absolutely cream Trump? Virtually every poll out there said that Hillary was going to win, so if Trump ended up winning anyway, doesn’t that mean that 30% is at least decent enough for someone like Trump?
 
What’s more, we are seeing a strong economy today with the lowest unemployment rates for Hispanics (and other demographics, but the focus is on Hispanics) that we’ve ever recorded, so Trump has that going for himself, particularly with Hispanics.
 
But then, Drucker quotes Albert Morales, a senior political director for Latino Decisions (admittedly a group I have never heard of), that typically studies Hispanic vote patterns and other things. Morales said that, according to recent internal polling, 80% of Hispanics intend to vote in 2020, as though that is a massive warning for Trump.
 
“That figure ‘is usually around 50%,’ Morales said. Republicans hope a booming economy will supersede Hispanics’ lingering reservations about Trump over his crackdown on illegal immigration and aggressive tactics to secure the border…”
 
Ok, what? This article, up to this point, was talking about how despite Trump’s tough border stance, Hispanics still support him. And now, it’s likely going to be a problem for him that he’s hoping will be superseded by a strong economy? Did Drucker start writing an entirely different article in the middle of talking about how Hispanics don’t actually distance themselves from Trump because of his strong border stance?
 
I honestly don’t understand the logic here. Back in 2016, Trump garnered a fair bit of the Hispanic vote, a typical number for Republicans to garner. Despite the fact Trump centered his entire campaign around the idea of Making America Great Again (which is somehow supposed to turn off Hispanics because apparently we can’t be happy for America and hope it does well) and securing the southern border with a great and beautiful wall, these same ideas are likely going to sink him in his reelection bid with Hispanics?
 
What’s more, Drucker went on to say: “Morales was doubtful (about Trump superseding supposed Hispanic reservation about Trump’s tough border stance, which we just established is not really there), explaining that Hispanic anger at the president’s policies evident in the midterm elections has not dissipated. ‘I think that question needs to be posed to the 40 Republicans who lost their [House] seats,’ Morales said concerning whether the economy would be enough. ‘That’s what they were relying on last cycle, but it just wasn’t enough,’ Morales said.”
 
Are these people seriously forgetting that almost all of the seats the Republicans lost in the midterms was because the incumbents conveniently retired and incumbents tend to get reelected? Had fewer, or even none of the Republicans who retired last year not decided to retire and run again, it’s entirely certain Republicans would’ve lost far less seats and maybe would’ve even retained a majority in the House, even if it was a slimmer one.
 
And let’s not forget the rather suspicious manner in which some Democrats wound up winning their races, conveniently “finding” a whole bunch of extra ballots in the trunks of people’s cars that conveniently went to the Democrat candidate and counting those ballots WELL after the polls closed and some elections should’ve been decided. (Seriously, I highly doubt the elections in Orange County, CA, which originally went to the Republicans but after some of this crap went to Democrats, were in any way legitimate).
 
The only part about that “80% of Hispanics” that intend to vote in 2020 that scares me is the high chance some of them are illegal immigrants who intend to illegally vote for the Democrats that will allow them to stay where they are and will even go as far as to allow them sanctuary even if they commit heinous crimes against Americans.
 
But as far as Trump’s reelection efforts go, there really is no good reason for him to lose, both the election and Hispanic support. There are Hispanics such as myself who HATE the fact the Left is allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border without any sort of punishment or care for the rule of law. Legal immigrants like my family hate the fact Democrats give ILLEGALS special treatment despite whatever they may do.
 
Seriously, do you remember when the trial for Kate Steinle wrapped up? Where Kate Steinle’s murderer was acquitted of all charges except for the illegal possession of a firearm? And do you remember the trial for George Zimmerman?
 
When a delinquent African American kid is tragically killed because a half-Hispanic and half-white man defended himself, people were basically up in arms when Zimmerman was found not guilty. But when a poor white girl gets shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported FIVE TIMES in a case that should’ve at the very least found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter is acquitted of almost all charges, no one bats an eyelash.
 
Illegals essentially get this message from the Democrat Party: do whatever the hell you want, even kill people, because we are going to do everything in our power to keep you here in the States and protected from law enforcement.
 
No worse form of injustice or corruption could be found than in this. Kate Steinle’s murderer gets off scot free because he’s a precious little illegal immigrant who did nothing wrong and Kate was simply dumb enough to be walking on a walkway like a weirdo.
 
Legal immigrants such as myself go through the process the right way, waiting our time, paying our dues, etc. and illegals just get to walk past the border with zero documentation and can get away with anything and the Democrats allow this? Gee, I wonder why so many Hispanics support Trump.
 
Not that I’m asking that legal immigrants get any special treatment either. Far be it from me, a conservative, to wish to receive something from the government. What I am asking for, however, is that we observe and respect the rule of law.
 
If there is one thing I disagree with Trump about is when he said something along the lines that most illegal immigrants are criminals, coming here and raping or dealing drugs or killing, etc. Most of them are not criminals. ALL OF THEM ARE! It’s in the name ILLEGAL immigrant. Even if you want to use the stupid PC version of it, “undocumented immigrant”, that still poses a legality problem. You can’t be here WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION!
 
So for those who are here illegally, I want them out. They have no RIGHT to be here. If they wish to come back in, they have to go through the proper, LEGAL process, in which case, they absolutely would have the right to be here. But until that happens, they need to get the hell out of this country.
 
And if Trump can manage to do that (of course, he’ll need the help of typically spineless Republicans, so it’s a tough road for him), then he’d garner even more Hispanic support. Because we don’t support him “despite” his tough immigration stance. We support him PRECISELY BECAUSE of his tough immigration stance. Those that fail to understand that are nothing but arrogant Leftist snobby elitists who have a seriously annoying superiority complex and an ironic “holier than thou” mindset who think they are better than the people they claim to “support”.
 
Exodus 12:49
“There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!