There might be some of you who wish to see me talking about the case made against Brett Kavanaugh surrounding the accusations made against him, as well as the testimony that has been given by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford this past week. However, I will refrain from making any sort of comment regarding this until after Judge Brett Kavanaugh has either been confirmed to the Supreme Court (which is what I believe will happen) or he gets denied. As it stands, I believe you know my position: I do not believe any of the (now 4) claims made against Kavanaugh as not a single one of them offers any sort of evidence or witness that can or has corroborated the claims.
So until Kavanaugh is either confirmed or denied, I won’t talk about this. But rest assured I will cover as much as absolutely possible next week, barring any more b.s. delays.
With that topic taken care of, let’s get down to the crux of this article. And don’t worry, I won’t completely leave the Kavanaugh case out of this article.
The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman, a Swedish advertisement watchdog, went after an internet service provider named Bahnhof which had used the “Distracted Boyfriend Meme” (picture above) which was used to advertise to people searching for a new job.
Allow me to give you some background information as a Millennial who uses the internet more than he goes outside. The “Distracted Boyfriend Meme”, as depicted above, features a guy holding his girlfriend’s hand, but his gaze is directed towards a woman who is seemingly more attractive than his girlfriend. All-the-while, the girlfriend looks at her boyfriend in both disbelief and disgust at the fact that he is looking at another woman with that particular face, which seems to signify some sort of approval, or as if to say “ohhh, look at dat …” Ahem. Anyway.
This meme went viral last year and was still somewhat used this year. Bahnhof, the internet service company, used this meme to signify the target audience (the distracted boyfriend) might be looking for a better job than the one they currently have (the two girls).
However, The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman claimed that the meme itself was “gender discriminatory” aka sexist. The Ombudsman said: “It portrays women as interchangeable objects, and that only their appearance is interesting. According to the committee, the objectification is reinforced by the fact that women are designated as workplace representatives while the man, as the recipient of the advertisement, is being produced as an individual.”
Now, Bahnhof argued that they only used the meme to “show that Bahnhof is an attractive employer and that those who have a slightly less good employer could be interested in us.”
The statement continues: “Everyone who follows the internet and meme culture knows how the meme is used and interpreted. [Whether someone is a] man, woman or neutral gender is often irrelevant in this context. We are an internet company and are conversant in this, as are those who would look for a job with us, so we turned to that target group. If we should be punished for anything, it’s for using an old and tired meme.”
According to the Daily Wire, Bahnhof also “reportedly shared several variations of the meme with characters of varying gender and species to show that gender was not the driving factor behind the use of the meme.”
All of this comes some time after the European Union voted in favor of implementing a new copyright directive that would basically ban internet memes in European countries because those memes could be subject to copyrights claims if not credited to the proper creator. However, given that internet memes often come up out of nowhere and often times come from t.v. shows such as SpongeBob SquarePants, it can be difficult to give proper credit to the creator, thus making this directive pretty much a ban on memes.
While hardly anything too important, it does show the kind of dangers of globalism. While the directive isn’t law yet and it needs to be applied to all countries within the Union, the fact that a globalist organization like the E.U. voted in favor of banning what is effectively a form of free speech speaks volumes about the sort of power that they have and the sort of damage they could do. Sure, banning internet memes may not be too big a deal to most people, but it shows that the EU could go farther in restricting free speech in Europe.
But that is a conversation for another time. The main focus of this article is the fact that an “advertisement watchdog” has deemed the Distracted Boyfriend Meme to be sexist when it’s nothing more than a tool for dry humor that’s not meant to cause any sort of emotional or psychological harm to anyone.
But since this is 2018 and everyone gets triggered by everything, we have a company deeming a harmless internet meme “sexist”. Now, this being a watchdog and not a government organization, they can’t really do anything about the meme or to Bahnhof. According to The Local, an English-language news organization in Sweden, “Sweden’s Advertising Ombudsman has guidelines stating that advertisements should not depict women or men as ‘mere sex objects’ or in other ways which are ‘degrading and clearly sexist’. However, the body only has the ability to make judgments on adverts, not impose sanctions.”
So, as it stands, Bahnhof likely won’t be punished for this meme. However, I would not be surprised if someone within the Swedish government were to try to do something to Bahnhof for this. The fact that we live in this day and age where just about anything can be considered sexist leads me to feel that way.
Now, I did mention earlier that the Kavanaugh case would not be entirely out of this article. Well, in the days running up to Ford’s testimony, the GOP had sought that a female attorney who is familiar with sex crimes interview Dr. Ford. Before they had done this, there was speculation from the Left that if the Republicans questioned Ford herself, it would be a “sham hearing” and a set-up. So the GOP got the aforementioned female attorney. The Left’s response? It’s “sexist”.
Yep. You can read these people like a book. I knew that regardless of what the GOP did, whether they interviewed Ford themselves or got someone else to do it, they would be disparaged and attacked by the Left and the media.
Tell me, how is it sexist to ask a female lawyer who is familiar with this sort of case to question the woman making accusations? I imagine if the GOP had hired a male lawyer with similar qualifications, the Left would have called that sexist as well because they would have “gotten a man to do this and we all know that men are pigs and rapists” or some other nonsense.
So it’s sexist if the GOP questions Ford themselves, sexist if they hired a male lawyer to question Ford and sexist if they hired a female lawyer to question Ford? What exactly were they hoping for? A gender-neutral human-dragon hybrid from the planet Krypton? Would that have sufficed the Left’s insanity?
But this is the world we currently live in. Everything anyone does, if they just so happen to disagree with the Left or even happen to use an internet meme that could somehow be considered “politically incorrect”, it is attacked and disparaged as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or any combination of all of them.
Similar to the EU’s meme ban, this is the Left’s attempt at restricting freedom of speech and alternative views. Anything that is deemed politically incorrect cannot be allowed on the internet. It must be taken down and the culprit shamed and be made an example of what happens to anyone who dares violate the rules set forth by the Left’s regime of oppression clumsily disguised as liberation.
I recently had a conversation with someone. We talked about a number of things, but primarily about the behavior the Left has been showing not just throughout the Kavanaugh case but throughout these last couple of years. We arrived at the conclusion that the next time the Left takes back power – be it the House, the Senate, the White House or any combination of the three – they would be out for blood. Not just for Trump’s blood (figuratively speaking, but I would not put it past them to try to Mussolini him throughout the D.C. streets) but for anyone who dared defy the Left at any point. We arrived at the conclusion that, if they return to power, they would make conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters everywhere pay for what we have done.
It wouldn’t be quick. We wouldn’t have concentration camps immediately, but I wouldn’t put it past them to do that sort of thing. In the Obama years, we saw a Democrat President dismiss the Constitution as irrelevant in much of what he did, a Democrat Party that backed everything he was doing, a Republican Party too scared to fight back and a Democrat base in love with anything and everything the President did.
So I wouldn’t put it past them to try and effectively destroy or render the Constitution as irrelevant or ineffective. DACA, Obamacare and many other things are already unconstitutional and not many have tried to push back against it, let alone be successful at it. With how rabid and thermonuclear the Left is, should they ever return to power, they will make all of us pay.
They already try to make the case that everything we do and stand for is racist, sexist, balloonist, unicornist etc. and they are the Party that’s OUT of power. Could you imagine a reinvigorated and powerful Democrat Party in Washington? It would effectively be the end of the United States as founded.
Earlier, I made the case that Europe’s meme ban was an infringement on people’s free speech. While largely inconsequential to most people, it does represent the sort of power the EU has. The problem Europe faces is that these people are not elected representatives. They are bureaucrats with too much power that influence too many people in Western civilization.
The advantage we have as a nation is that we elect our representatives. If we believe they are not doing a good job, we can usually kick them out. The problem comes when people don’t think that someone who is doing wrong is doing anything wrong. If the Democrats take back the House or the Senate, that is because we allowed it to happen. As such, we deserve precisely what would come after. As they say, “you get the government you deserve”.
Trump’s election didn’t drive the Left crazy – it exposed their insanity. Having unmasked themselves as the monsters they are, it has become obvious that these people cannot be allowed anywhere near Washington D.C. or any other place of power. Unfortunately, many will see differently. Too many people are either ignoring what is happening or are HAPPY with what is happening.
With Judge Kavanaugh, the Left is happy because this guy is being destroyed not because he did something wrong but because he dared be Trump’s pick for SCOTUS and dares be a threat to the Left. Schumer and others have said as much that there is no presumption of innocence with Kavanaugh. As such, they display they could not care less about the rule of law. Because without presumption of innocence, there is no rule of law. Kavanaugh is guilty just because the Left says so.
That is the sort of carte blanche power the Left believes they have and could possibly have if we are not careful. They think they're ENTITLED to this sort of power.
Regardless, that is all to be discussed next week. Right now, I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of the Left and of the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman at calling anything they don’t like “sexist” or what have you.
It goes back to that Socratic idea of logic vs. ignorance. Unfortunately, it seems the ignorant are plentiful and powerful.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that does not cost you a single penny. The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store. So make sure to check it out!
It’s not exactly unheard of for a media source to actually act like a proper journalism source and fact-check a Democrat the right way. However, it is rare, which is why I marvel at the fact that, after Democrat Candidate for Senate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke claimed he did not try to flee the scene of an accident in 1998 after driving drunk, the Washington Post fact-checked him and gave him a rating of 4 Pinocchios.
In a debate last Friday against Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Beto was faced with the charge that on September 27th, 1998, he was caught driving drunk and attempting to leave the scene of an accident he created. While he did admit to having driven drunk, admitting that there is no excuse for his behavior, he adamantly denied attempting to leave the scene of the crime.
During the debate, this is what O’Rourke said regarding the topic: “I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense, and I will not try to provide one.”
However, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler looked into the allegation made against O’Rourke and O’Rourke’s counterclaim. Kessler noted: “The Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News had recently obtained police reports of the collision and reported that O’Rourke had done so.”
The report stated that on September 27th, 1998, roughly at 3 in the morning in Anthony, Texas, police officer Richard Carrera had been dispatched to the scene of a collision on I-10, roughly a mile from the border with New Mexico. Officer Carrera met O’Rourke and wrote in a complaint that “The defendant (O’Rourke) advised in a slurred speech that he had caused an accident.”
In another report, Carrera wrote that O’Rourke “was unable to be understood due to slurred speech” and that he displayed “glossy eyes” and “breath that smelled of an alcohol beverage.” When the officer asked O’Rourke to step out of the vehicle, O’Rourke “almost fell to the floor.” Upon being given a breathalyzer, O’Rourke clocked in at 0.136 and 0.134, which is above the legal limit of 0.10.
A witness to the accident had informed Carrera that O’Rourke’s vehicle passed him going at high speeds in a 70 mph zone, lost control of the vehicle and “struck a truck travelling the same direction.” Carrera wrote that O’Rourke “then attempted to leave the scene. The reporter then turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and try to get the defendant to stop.” The incident and crime report stated that “the driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the reporter.”
Kessler then wrote that some people said the Post could not “rely on police reports because they often have incomplete and contradictory information.” Kessler also noted that the O’Rourke campaign issued no response when the Post offered them the chance to talk.
Finally, Kessler concluded that “At The Fact Checker, we place a high value on contemporaneous records. The police reports show not only that O’Rourke was highly intoxicated but that a witness to the crash said he tried to leave the scene… given his blood alcohol content at the time of the crash, O’Rourke’s memory 20 years after the fact is not nearly as credible as the police reports written just hours after the crash… he earns Four Pinocchios.”
As I said, it is rare for the media to try to be journalistically fair and credible. Now, I’m not saying they are credible just because they are going against the word of a Democrat, particularly a rising star in the Democrat Party (if he wins, that is, which I would doubt). They are credible because they look at the evidence presented, i.e. the police reports, and contrast that with O’Rourke’s claim, as well as the likelihood that his inebriation could have affected his memory and come to the conclusion that the police report from a few hours after the incident is more credible than O’Rourke’s defense 20 years later.
The ironic thing is that this then offers some problem to Dr. Ford’s accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. Now, I won’t get into too much detail, as the testimony hearing and confirmation hearing have not yet happened as of the writing of this article. However, if we, and by “we”, I include Kessler, make the argument that O’Rourke’s memory likely was faulty due to his inebriation, then we can likewise make the argument that Dr. Ford’s memory likely was faulty due to the fact that she had also been drinking.
Now, I don’t know exactly how much O’Rourke was actually drinking (though he reported having had only two drinks, which should not have gotten him as drunk as he was given his stature and weight), and we also do not know how much exactly Dr. Ford was drinking. However, Dr. Ford did mention in her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that she herself had been inebriated during the time of the alleged assault.
How inebriated, I cannot say, but given that this was a 15-year-old girl at a likely unsupervised party, it could have been a fair bit, barring any sort of self-restraint from Ford.
Like I said, I won’t get into too much detail about the Kavanaugh case, but it is important to point out that if we are going to go by the rule of law regarding O’Rourke driving drunk, causing an accident and attempting to flee the scene of said accident, we should also go by the rule of law regarding the allegations made against Brett Kavanaugh.
O’Rourke himself had a presumption of innocence, but police reports prove his guilt. Kavanaugh himself should have a presumption of innocence as well (though the Democrats like Chuck Schumer want to pretend that he doesn’t) and there has yet to be any evidence at all, let alone any substantial evidence to prove his guilt regarding any of the allegations made against him, including the newest one about a supposed gang-rape ring he had, which is all kinds of preposterous.
Regardless, that’s an argument to be made another time. As it stands, I mostly wanted to focus on the fact that a fact-checker from an MSM source such as the Washington Post exercised proper journalistic integrity and called out the Democrat candidate in Texas, not necessarily of lying, but certainly of not telling the truth as it happened.
Like I said, it’s not unheard of to have an MSM source abide by journalistic standards, but it is a sight to behold. It’s a rarity in today’s America, where every source is either talking about Russian collusion (which has since been pretty much entirely dropped, both because of Kavanaugh and because the Deep State is being exposed) or assuming Kavanaugh’s guilt, accompanied by Justice Clarence Thomas’ guilt, all-the-while ignoring Keith Ellison’s abuse and mistreatment of his then-girlfriend Karen Monahan.
To have the Washington Post, a news organization that features radical Leftists like Jennifer Rubin, offer a number of Pinocchios to anyone who is a Democrat is rare.
I simply choose to relish in it for as long as I can before they try to go back to attacking Trump/Kavanaugh/America/anything that is good and not evil.
1 John 1:8
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Just as the name suggests, it is an entirely free newsletter that will not cost you a single penny. The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy access to our online store straight from your e-mail inbox. All you have to do is put your e-mail address in the white box on the right side of the screen and click the subscribe button. It’s that easy!
Back in August, I wrote an article that detailed the fact that only 25% of Democrats would support abolishing ICE after the illegal immigration debate heated up once again and somehow was hurting Trump to a degree.
While I do not necessarily have any news surrounding Democrats’ support of abolishing ICE, I do bring some news surrounding Latino voters’ views on ICE. And they don’t look good for Democrats.
A recently released poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo found that, of 300 interviewees who were registered Latino voters, 36% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports abolishing ICE compared to 33% who would be more likely to vote for such a candidate.
26% said there was “no difference” either way and 5% said they were “not sure”.
Now, the poll doesn’t just focus on this one item. The poll is actually quite extensive, for example:
But perhaps most interestingly, though not necessarily shocking:
So we really should take everything in this poll with a grain of salt. This is a relatively small sample size, with only 300 registered Latino voters being surveyed.
But there are a number of things to take away from all this. Primarily, while the vast majority of Latino voters understand socialism and despise it, they do not recognize it in Democrats… somehow. Despite the fact that they do not like socialism at all, they still seemingly hold a negative view towards Trump and the GOP and would prefer the Democrats to win in November.
So what this poll tells me is that there is a severe lack of knowledge out there for Latinos. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying Latinos are stupid. Ignorance and idiocy are two different things. People can cease being ignorant simply through learning and acquiring knowledge. However, people can’t cease being stupid even with knowledge.
It’s clear to me that these Latino voters understand that Capitalism is good and Socialism is evil. They are not stupid. However, they are ignorant if they still prefer Democrats over Trump and the GOP. They do not recognize that the Democrats would only bring about the same kind of Socialism that they despise and some might even had fled from.
Regardless, that is a topic for another time. Right now, I want to focus on the fact that even within the same poll that has Latinos adamantly rejecting Trump and the GOP, Latinos also report being less likely to vote for someone who would support abolishing ICE.
It’s this sort of inconsistency that leads me to take everything this poll says with a grain of salt, even the things that are positive in my eyes. Latinos prefer Obama over Trump, the Dems over the GOP, all the while supporting Capitalism over Socialism and keeping ICE over abolishing it?
Taking aside the fact that this is a poll from an MSM source, this poll does not seem very consistent and might not be entirely credible.
However, the fact that the poll shows Latinos favoring ICE and being less likely to vote for a candidate that would support abolishing it speaks volumes, regardless of credibility.
I can understand if the poll wanted to skew certain things to make Trump and the GOP look bad and like they are about to get kicked out of Washington. I don’t know how many of the registered Latino voters are Democrats compared to Republicans. But I would be naïve to assume there is no overlap of Democrat voters in an MSM poll. However, I won’t speculate further.
All I’m saying is that it is remarkable that, despite many of the other things the poll shows, the voters would prefer ICE stay than be abolished. That goes against many other things the poll indicates and the Democrats claim. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran, among other things, on the promise of abolishing ICE. Upon her upset victory over Joe Crowley, other Democrats picked up on some of the things she was saying and moved farther Left, also calling on ICE to be abolished.
Now, as I said at the beginning of the article, support for abolishing ICE has dropped off massively since Ocasio-Cortez’s victory even within Democrats. So perhaps I should not be so surprised that Latinos tend to have a more favorable view of the agency. But that’s not what has me intrigued. Frankly, it’s not that surprising.
For the most part, registered Latino voters are legal immigrants (though I don’t know if there were any illegals who were considered “registered voters” in the poll or actually are “registered voters” as illegal as that is, but I won’t speculate further on that issue… for now). Legal immigrants tend to not have positive views on illegal immigrants.
You see, legal immigrants go through the process the right way. They (we, since I am a legal immigrant and now proud U.S. citizen) pay what needs to be paid, wait the amount of time that needs to be waited, sign and complete all the forms that need to be signed and completed, and overall go through the extensive process of attaining legal status to immigrate and become a legal U.S. resident.
Illegals basically crap all over that.
So, when legal immigrants such as myself see what illegals are doing and the preference they receive from the Democrats, we tend to not like that. Now, I do realize the poll shows Latinos prefer Democrats over the GOP, but as I insinuated, that’s relatively questionable right now.
When we see a government agency properly enforcing the immigration laws we ourselves were subjected to, we tend to like that. No one should be able to come here through illegal means and those that do should immediately be considered criminals. And don’t tell me that’s harsh. If you break the law, you’re a criminal. If you break immigration law, you’re a criminal. Simple as that.
This is a view that, from what logic and seemingly data from an MSM poll, most legal immigrants share. So what has me surprised is not that registered Latino voters seemingly marginally support ICE. What has me surprised is that the MSM poll would show that.
Either way, I would imagine the MSM would focus more on the numbers that help reflect their narrative that a blue wave is incoming and inevitable than to focus on the fact that Latinos would be less likely to support a candidate that wants ICE abolished or the fact that Latinos tend to despise Socialism and prefer Capitalism.
But regardless of what the fake news media has to say, they have given me no reason to believe what they say on multiple occasions.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store delivered straight to your inbox. All you have to do is click on the box on the right, type in your e-mail address, click on the subscribe button and you’re good to go. No money to be paid, no data to be shared apart from your e-mail address, no hassles.
Another day, another idiotic college professor misunderstanding the Bible entirely (either willingly or unwillingly, not sure which is worse). Jesus Christ never condemned the rich. He warned them that their love of money could destroy them, but He never condemned the fact they were wealthy to begin with. But we'll get to that momentarily.
Now, this article is a little bit weird because, unlike pretty much every other time, I do not know exactly what the professor argues. Let me explain.
DePaul University political science Professor David Lay Williams held a lecture this month. However, it does not look as though the event was filmed or otherwise documented. All I could find about it is DePaul’s Events list detailing the Mess Hall lecture with a relatively brief description.
So unlike in other articles, I can’t directly challenge the arguments that the professor makes because I don’t have access to those arguments. All I have is the description of the event. However, the description does offer some things for me to explain.
So instead of creating a counterargument to someone’s argument, I will try my best at defending the concept of being wealthy and amassing wealth, why Jesus warned (not condemned, don't get them confused) the rich of His time and why He wouldn't condemn every rich person of today’s world.
Let’s begin by looking at the lecture’s description:
“’Inequality is the root of all social evil,’ Pope Francis has warned. A look at his sources suggests he could hardly argue otherwise. So contends DePaul Political Science Professor David Lay Williams, who investigates the predatory lending practices and extremes of economic inequality in Jesus’ Roman Palestine in a chapter of his forthcoming book on the development of economic inequality in Western political thought. Reimagining some of Jesus’ parables and examining passages from the Gospels and the Book of James, Williams discovered a Jesus intent on reducing the corrosive effects of wealth, greed, and inequality and condemning those with great fortunes as unworthy inhabitants for the kingdom of God. Williams contrasts him with Paul’s attitude toward pious Christians with wealth.”
Right off the bat, I can see I would have a hard time of being convinced by anything the professor says (which I can’t access, as I’ve said). Quoting Pope Francis to make a Christian argument is like quoting Bill Clinton to make an argument against raping women. It just doesn’t work. Beyond the fact that the current Il Papa is a staunch believer in climate change and that mankind has something to do with it, the current reports about his willingness to aid pedophilic priests and his overall comments saying that those who are calling out this perverted evil are of the devil himself all tell me he’s as far from a Christian as one can get while calling himself one.
I had always had an issue with the Pope calling himself the head of the Catholic Church, since only Jesus should be considered the head of the Church, but this particular Pope has to be one of the worst of all time.
When the Dalai Lama is more adamant about Europe belonging to Europeans instead of Muslims than the HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, there is a problem. So to base an entire lecture (as far as I know) off of a quote from Pope LuciFrancis, that is going to raise some flags on my end.
Now, regarding other things such as “investigating predatory lending practices”, I won’t argue much there. For as long as humanity has had some form of currency, given our evil nature, humanity has sought to cheat and steal off of someone else.
The very first deal we know of is God’s deal with Adam and Eve. Now, it’s not exactly an official deal signed with a document, but it was a deal that had God allowing Adam and Eve enjoying the Garden of Eden in exchange for not eating out of the forbidden tree. And I think we all know what happened.
Later on in the Old Testament, time and time again, whenever a deal between two people was made, there were certain rules such as having people there as witnesses to oversee the making of the deal, like when Boaz bought Elimelech’s belongings and redeemed Ruth in Ruth chapter 4. Or when Abraham made a deal with Ephron the Hittite to buy the land where he would bury Sarah in Genesis chapter 23.
So there were legitimate deals that were held and there were deals where someone would finesse another person, hence why the Old Testament, which is the Word of God, insisted in having rules and traditions to ensure a deal was kept between two parties.
Now, the lecture description mentions what the Gospels and the Book of James say about the rich. And it makes sense, with verses such as Luke 18:25: “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God,” or James 5:1-6: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.”
Or even Luke 12:33: “Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.”
But here’s the thing: at the time of Christ, when He would warn the rich, the rich were either those who worked in the government, those who were friends with people in the government, or land-owners with farms and such. The way the first two got rich was by taxing others. If you get rich off of taxing others, chances are good that you are stealing from them.
Now, one can make the case that taxation is theft and the IRS should be abolished along with taxes. I won’t necessarily make that argument myself as it doesn’t really belong in this article and I personally do not entirely agree with it, but that’s for another time.
The point is that Jesus warned the rich because they're very likely to rely on themselves for everything, including salvation. That's why He said it's more difficult for them to enter the Kingdom of God - He never said it was impossible. Just more difficult given the wealthy's self-reliance.
The rich, as I stated earlier, can also include land-owners, not just taxmen. As the aforementioned James 5:1-6 passage says “the wages of the laborers… which you kept back by fraud… you have condemned and murdered the righteous person…” I don’t know exactly who James is talking to here. The letter he wrote was addressed to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion, or the Diaspora, which is the dispersion of the Jews throughout events in the entire Bible. That is my best explanation of the Dispersion not being a theologian myself.
But James clearly is writing letters to twelve tribes and no one in particular. But he writes this with the accusation of the rich people defrauding their servants and “condemning and murdering the righteous person”. I do not know exactly who the “righteous person” is in this context. What I understand is that people who convert to Christianity are deemed righteous thereafter, even while remaining sinners (though they are righteous not out of their own work but by God's grace).
However, that’s not the most important part in this context. James is mentioning, or at least accusing, that the rich he’s referring to have been dishonest with the wages that belong to their laborers. It’s performing such an evil act that is the focal point of this passage. Not the fact that they're rich.
There are other passages in the Bible that speak against the rich and the amassing of wealth, but not because being rich or amassing wealth is in itself a bad thing, but because a love of money, which is sinful, can often stem from it.
1 Timothy 6:10 says: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
You see, it’s not being rich in itself that is bad or evil. It’s the love of money that CAN come from it (but does not have to). For example, Abraham was a pretty rich guy. He was able to buy multiple plots of land and many farm animals like sheep, oxen, etc. Yet, God never condemned his wealth. He never urged Abraham to give up his Earthly possessions.
Why? Because Abraham was faithful to the Lord, though he would stumble such as when he slept with and impregnated Hagar. But Abraham stayed faithful to the Lord, trusted in Him and followed His commandments as best as he could.
So I have to ask: would Jesus condemn the rich of today? Depends on which ones. I will not name any Democrats, as that is obvious why He would condemn them, the least of the reasons which is that they are rich. But people like, say, Bill Gates? I don’t know. Gates didn’t steal anyone’s money. He earned it himself. As far as I know, he didn’t mistreat anyone while he was head of Microsoft. Now, he does have other issues with regard to his entrance into heaven, given that he is an atheist, but I am absolutely sure being rich, with the way he became rich, is something Jesus would not condemn. His Atheism, if he dies without converting, will condemn him. But not his wealth.
Again, Christ never condemns people because of their money - in fact, it's God who blesses us with money and possessions. He condemns unbelievers only - those who love money more than Jesus. It’s the love of money that gets people into trouble. It’s their crooked behavior that gets them into trouble. It’s not the actual money count that gets people into trouble.
So while Christ did indeed warn the rich, as shown throughout the Bible, His issue is not the actual wealth of someone, but rather how they get it, what they do with it and in whom those people trust: their money or the Lord.
The first commandment reads: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” The love of money, the worship of money, is basically idolatry. And it being the first commandment, we can see that it’s a pretty important one to God.
“Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for He has said, ‘I will never leave you nor forsake you.’”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles compiled into a single email, and it gives you easy access to our online store. And since it’s entirely free, that means I don’t make money off of it. I’m safe from the Lord’s wrath… for now.
While I have mostly been trying to stay off of this topic since everyone else is talking about it and I have already said likely what is the most important thing surrounding this issue: that the #MeToo movement is a Socratic issue of logic vs. ignorance, I feel compelled to talk about something that happened recently surrounding this entire issue, at least in regards to the way the MSM wants to portray this entire matter.
CNN interviewed a group of five Republican women from Florida last week to ask them some questions on their opinions surrounding this entire case.
Randi Kaye, the interviewer from CNN, asked: “A show of hands, how many of you believe Judge Kavanaugh when he says this didn’t happen?”
To which all five women raised their hands.
One of the women, named Lourdes Castillo De La Pena, elaborated further: “How can we believe the word of a woman from something that happened 36 years ago? This guy has an impeccable reputation. Nobody, nobody that has spoken ill will about him. Everyone that speaks about him. This guy’s an altar boy, a scout. Because one woman made an allegation? Sorry, I don’t buy it.”
Another, named Inna Villarino, added: “In the grand scheme of things, my goodness, there was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we – really? 36 years and she’s still stuck on that?”
With another woman, named Gina Sosa adding: “I mean, we’re talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect. You know, I’m a woman. I respect. But we’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school. Please, I would like to know.”
And another woman, named Angie Vazquez, was savvy enough to ask: “Why didn’t she come out when he was going into the Bush White House? Why didn’t she come out – he’s been a federal judge for over a decade.”
Now, I have mixed feelings about these responses. While I do appreciate that these women are smart enough not to fall for Ford’s evidence-less accusations, some of the answers here are fairly questionable.
Let’s begin with the first answer, the one that Lourdes gave. She mentions that it’s been 36 years since this incident happened and that it’s only been one woman stepping forward to accuse him. While I am of the belief that the Left could and likely would recruit other women to come forth and accuse Kavanaugh of things he likely didn’t do, my bigger issue is with her initial response.
It doesn’t really matter how long ago something happened if it was wrong. Assuming that what Ford is saying is the truth (this is basically the only time I will do this as I do not believe she’s telling the truth), objectively, the only problems I have with this being so old are that:
1) Ford likely won’t be able to remember things in too great a detail. As traumatizing as such an even is for women, it’s also something they’d like to forget.
2) I really do have to ask why she didn’t come forward earlier than this. I believe that maybe she didn’t go to the police because it’s either an embarrassing thing to admit (though it was just groping, according to her, so it’s not as embarrassing as full-blown rape) or the police wouldn’t do much to investigate the issue.
So while I do have problems with the fact that this is an allegation of something that happened 36 years ago, if it did happen, it doesn’t matter how long ago it was. Now, Lourdes could mean to say that Ford’s memory likely won’t be too good and thus, the accusation might not be very credible, but she did not elaborate much further on what she meant by mentioning how long ago it was and why should we believe her considering how long ago it was.
And perhaps my argument is shaped this way because of what the second woman, Inna, said, about it having been 36 years ago and she’s “still stuck on that”. Maybe that’s the reason I made the argument that it doesn’t matter how long ago it was, and I believe that’s a fairly good argument, but Lourdes might not necessarily have meant it as “it was over 30 years ago, just let go!” That’s how I heard it, but maybe she didn’t mean it that way.
Now, the answer that Gina Sosa gives, about this being a 17-year-old boy with raging hormones and “what boy hasn’t done this in high school” does irk me a lot.
Understanding such behavior does not necessarily mean excusing it. Using the “boys will be boys” argument in this instance, under the assumption that Ford is telling the truth, is asinine and wrong. If Kavanaugh did grope Ford when they were teenagers (I feel compelled to remind everyone that I do not believe Ford’s accusation and this is entirely hypothetical) and if they were both drunk, the fact that they were teenagers does not excuse their behavior.
I was a teenager once and I dealt with my share of hormones. I would look where I ought not to look, I would think what I ought not to think and had impulses. But I never acted on those impulses, at least not with other people.
Sosa asks what boy in high school hasn’t done something like that, well I’ll raise my hand and say that I never did. In high school is when I converted to Christianity. Of course, I still dealt with hormones and emotions and impulses, but I knew better than to act on them. If Kavanaugh was a Christian when he was 17, and I mean truly Christian, knowing right from wrong and doing things with the aim to please God, then I have a hard time believing that 1) Kavanaugh groped anyone and 2) he was illegally drinking and getting hammered to the point where he would grope someone.
That’s not to say we don’t sometimes stumble and do something wrong, of course. As I’ve explained in the past, we are all sinners and sin is wrong. But being a Christian tends to lower the chances of doing something like that (and don’t bring up the Catholic Church priests molesting young boys because those “priests” are not Christians and neither is the Pope for ignoring it).
So Sosa’s answer really is not good at all. Understanding that teenagers have hormones does not excuse the actions they partake because of those hormones. If my 15-year-old daughter went to a party, got drunk and got groped by a 17-year-old boy who was also drunk, I would do a number of things.
First, of course, ground her for going to an unsupervised party (I assume it was unsupervised if there was alcohol) and getting drunk at said party.
Second, I would go to the boy, give him a stern talking-to, give his parents a stern talking-to and encourage my daughter to file charges the following day (and not 36 YEARS LATER).
Finally, I would give her a big hug and tell her everything’s taken care of.
But that last one is beside the point. The point is that I would be righteously pissed if a boy did that do my daughter. She would not be entirely without blame for being there and getting drunk in the first place, but I would be angrier with the boy. So Sosa’s answer, even without having a daughter, honestly annoyed me. That’s entirely the wrong answer to give, truthful accusation or not.
Finally, we move on to the one answer to the interviewer’s question that I actually liked, which is Angie’s. Why didn’t Ford bring this up in the past? Why didn’t she bring this up when Kavanaugh was going to the Bush White House? Why not at any point when he was a federal judge, or when he was going to get confirmed as a federal judge? Why wait until now when he’s about to be on the Supreme Court, nominated by a President Ford adamantly disagrees with?
A lot of things surrounding this case raises questions. Such as: “why didn’t she go to the local police soon after it happened?” Or “Why did she write a letter to a Senator 36 years after the incident happened?” Or “If Ford really did not want to come out to accuse Kavanaugh, why write the letter in the first place?” Or “Why did Feinstein sit on that letter until about a week before his confirmation vote? Why not raise this during the hearings I will henceforth dub ‘the Spartacus hearing’?” Or “Why did no one find this issue during the extensive vetting process Kavanaugh underwent before the hearings?”
So there are a lot of questions surrounding this issue that, to me, diminish some credibility of Ford. Add that to the fact she has no evidence or witnesses to corroborate her story or even the willingness to go under oath to testify in a trial that would be equally fair for Kavanaugh and I find it astonishing for anyone to believe her for any reason other than that she’s a woman.
Now, there were more questions from the CNN interviewer that you can hear in the video posted below, but I won’t talk about those as this article is long enough as it is.
The overall point of sharing this is that I believe CNN’s intent for this interview was to have Republican women openly going against Kavanaugh. I think it was an effort to have other Republican women be against Kavanaugh because these ones were. Although, it clearly backfired. I don’t think CNN expected any woman, conservative or liberal, to support Kavanaugh regarding this issue.
Although, I find it interesting that they didn’t get 5 Democrat women to lie and say they were Republicans who were against Kavanaugh. I feel like that would be more along the lines of the fake news nature of CNN, but I guess they decided to go with legitimately Republican women here and thought even Republican women would be against Kavanaugh.
Regardless, CNN failed once again and I get to laugh at their flimsy attempt to destroy Kavanaugh and subsequently Trump, since that’s always the aim of CNN.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles as well as access to our online store sent straight into your inbox. And the best part is that it won’t cost you a single cent. And given the verse above, you know that I wouldn’t lie about that.
Moving away from the hot button issue of the Kavanaugh accusation, I feel it is important to share some feel-happy news in a world that constantly tries to take away your joy. (Not that the Kavanaugh accusation has me down, knowing that it won’t derail Kavanaugh, but the Left tries their best to take away people’s joy).
The feel-happy news, if you really want to call it news, is that recently Chris Pratt had an interview with The Associated Press in which he discussed a number of things ranging from fitness to who his actor role model is (Tom Cruise, surprisingly, but mostly because Cruise does his own stunts), and the topic we’re focusing on particularly: his unabashedly Christian faith.
The interviewer for the AP said the following: “At recent award show appearances, you went out on stage and talked publicly about your faith. Is it an especially important time to do that?”
Personally, I find the phrasing of the question intriguing. He’s not asking if Pratt thinks it’s especially important for him to do it. He’s asking if it’s especially important to do that in our current time. I do not know who the AP interviewer is, but they might have a good eye for what is happening in today’s world and the impact of Christianity.
Alas, I likely will never know if the interviewer is a Christian him/herself and that that was the reason for phrasing the question in that manner, so let’s move on to Pratt’s answer.
“I don’t know that I am so much more motivated by where the world is or if it’s just what I’m feeling called to do right now. I think it’s a combination of both things… That kind of a message, it might not be for everybody. But there is a group of people for whom that message is designed. And nothing fills my soul more than to think that maybe some kid watching that would say, ‘Hey, I’ve been thinking about that. I’ve been thinking about praying. Let me try that out.’ That’s like the only way I feel like I can repay what has essentially been a giant gift in my life.”
A good answer, in my opinion. Obviously, it becomes increasingly important to spread the Word of God in a world that is adamantly rebellious against Him, a world that defies Him at every given opportunity and treads closer and closer towards the devil.
The Kavanaugh accusation alone is proof of this. The Left seeks to destroy him using a letter detailing, with flawed accuracy, events that happened sometime 30 years ago somewhere in the Northeast United States. The accuser brings up no evidence to support her claim, no witnesses to corroborate her claims, has refused to attend a hearing where her story would be heard, and when she agrees, she sets up “fairness” terms where likely she gets to decide what is fair and what isn’t, and demands the FBI investigate an issue they have twice said would not investigate and an issue that really falls under local law enforcement jurisdiction, not federal, not to mention an issue that would have come up during the vetting of Kavanaugh soon after his nomination if it had happened.
And even with all of these facts, the Left, the media and Hollywood celebrities are treating that one letter to Feinstein as gospel and the truth, seeking to destroy the career and livelihood of someone just because he poses a threat to the evil Supreme Court decision of 1973: Roe v. Wade.
Not to get too much into the actual topic, since everyone and their grandmother is talking about it, but it does offer a good example of a world that is getting closer to the devil. A world where the life of a man can be ruined by flimsy accusations that no one should believe, but somehow many do.
But the other part that is important is that spreading the Word of God and thanking the Lord at every given opportunity is something we are called to do no matter what the circumstance. Pratt does well in answering his question by saying it’s a combination of the state of the world today and the fact that he’s called to do it.
Then, the AP interviewer asks the following question: “Does it feel like a risk sometimes in Hollywood?”
To which Pratt answers: “No, not at all… I think that there’s this narrative that exists out there that Hollywood is anti-Christian or anti-religious, but it’s just not the case. They are kind of not anti-anything. They are kind of pro- whatever is authentic to you. And I like that. Because it’s authentic for me to be pro-Christian, pro-Jesus. That’s my thing. I like it. And I’ve never had anyone try to shame me, to my face. Maybe they go say it behind my back. But if that’s the case, go ahead. You can say whatever you want about me – to my face or behind my back. I’m not going to change.”
Interesting answer he gives here.
And there might be SOME truth to what he says. At this point in time, just about everyone, particularly people in Hollywood, knows that Pratt is a Christian. Despite this, he still gets to have lead roles in huge blockbuster movies such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World. He is enjoying pretty great success thus far, even with people knowing he’s a Christian.
However, that is where my agreement with his response ends. I’m not a Hollywood star like Pratt, so it’s not like I have inside knowledge on what happens there regarding this topic, but I know for a fact that Leftist Hollywood is anti-something. They are unabashedly anti-Trump.
Beyond that, they tend to be anti-God as well. Pratt may never have had someone try to shame him over his faith in the past, but we know very well that Hollywood, both in their movies and in their celebrities’ actions, are anti-God.
No, they may not necessarily come out every single day and shout that they hate God, but their actions show these types of feelings.
In their movies, time and time again, they try to shove Leftist messages down people’s throats. Messages such as “there is nothing wrong with being gay” (homosexuality is a sin. Sin is wrong.) or “it’s okay if you have an abortion, it’s just a blob of cells” or “all cops are racists”, etc.
That’s not necessarily every single movie, but we often see these messages in the big screen.
And that’s just mentioning the actual films. This is without mentioning the undoubtedly millions of dollars these Hollywood celebrities donate to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and others that are all inherently evil.
I’ve already explained why the #MeToo movement is evil in a previous article, so no need to repeat myself here. It’s fairly obvious why Planned Parenthood is evil and have written a multitude of articles detailing how and why they are evil. And with BLM, the reason it’s evil is because its leaders try to make every case where a cop shoots a black person strictly about race. Yeah, there are occasions when the officer definitely was out of line in killing someone who was not a threat. Such cases exist, but for the most part, cops shoot to kill someone who is an obvious threat to their lives or the lives of others.
So while Chris Pratt may have never been subject of persecution regarding his faith (at least in person. Social media might be a different story), it’s not entirely accurate to say that Hollywood people aren’t anti-anything. Everyone has an opinion, and they have the right to said opinion.
Hollywood Leftists have the right to promote filth, to support evil organizations, etc. But to say they are not anti-anything is not entirely accurate. These actions show me the kind of people they are: people who do not have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who do not follow His commandments, who do not obey the Lord and go out of their way to defy Him. The actions that I have listed above are proof of this.
Again, they might not come right out and say they hate God, but their actions speak louder than anything they could say.
In any case, I want to focus more on the fact that, regardless of what Pratt thinks is the way Hollywood acts (again, I can’t claim to have more knowledge than him), he himself will not be deterred in his faith in Christ.
That’s what I believe is the most important thing to take away from this and the most important thing to keep in mind. It’s great that Pratt is so open about his faith in Christ and wants to share it with the world. It’s great that he thanks God as often as possible and seemingly, that he prays whenever he can. Beyond all other opinions we may have on this world: whether or not Trump is a good President, whether or not socialism works (it doesn’t and that’s a fact), whether or not we are being finessed by other countries regarding trade deals, what is important is having faith in the Lord.
That’s why I don’t mind that Pratt is not political. That he doesn’t necessarily show favoritism towards one candidate or another. Aside from the fact that he’d effectively be committing career suicide if he were to say he’s a conservative (though I imagine people gather that, knowing he’s a Christian), he knows that it’s more important to focus on matters of Heaven than of Earth. That the Lord comes first and everything else comes last.
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles composed in a single email, and it also gives you easy access to our online store. And unlike the “socialists” at the New York Times and other publications that ask (or force) you to pay for a subscription, our publication is 100% free.
There’s something to be said surrounding this very topic: results matter.
But before I get too ahead of myself, allow me to set up the context for this article.
Recently, Cabot Phillips of Campus Reform went to Michigan State University to ask college students about Obama’s ludicrous attempt at taking credit for Trump’s economic success.
As a reminder, here’s what Obama said: “When you hear how great the economy’s doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started.” Oh, I remember. It started the day Trump got elected, with the stock market soaring to new heights as a result of the election. Remember how the Left said Trump would cause the market to crash if he got elected? I definitely do.
Now, while some on the Left such as anyone within the Leftist media or anyone who dons a “D” next to their name in Congress might believe this ridiculous idea that today’s economic success is even partly due to Obama, it seems that the college students Cabot interviewed did not share the same views.
In the video (below), Cabot asks multiple students about what Obama said and their overall opinions on the economy and Trump’s job regarding it.
One student said: “[Obama’s] been out long enough now, [the economy] is not on him anymore, it’s more on Donald Trump. I guess he’s a little bit in the wrong.”
Another said: “I would, unfortunately, side with Trump on this one. I think he has done a lot for the economy that Obama didn’t do such a good job on, so I’ll side with Trump on that one.”
One student noted that “I feel like once a President’s done, they hand it off… in terms of [economic] confidence and changing people’s attitudes, I would say that’s mostly Trump.”
Now, that’s not to say that these students are going to start supporting Trump. Pretty much every single student interviewed either visibly or verbally showed that, while they agree with Trump over Obama on this issue, they do so with some dismay. You can see that when one of the students said that she “unfortunately” sided with Trump on this. One of the female students went as far as to say that she finds Trump’s tweets “because I’m a girl and a lot of [the tweets] are against us.”
I don’t want to get too much into this, as I’d rather relish in the idea that college students actually agree with Trump on SOMETHING, but I will quickly say that not a single Trump tweet is against women. If they call someone out, they call a particular someone out (be it Pelosi, Feinstein, Warren, etc.) but do not make any sort of generalized sexist comment towards women. So, obviously, I disagree with the student on this.
That being said, she does follow up her comments, getting back on topic, that “economically, I feel like he’s really helping us.”
Now, I don’t know who “us” is in this scenario. Since she mentioned the fact that she’s a girl (do I call her out for not saying she’s cisgender, thus offending transgenders? Kidding.) she could mean he’s helping women economically, since female unemployment rate is hovering in the low 4% according to the website statista.com. She could also mean millennials, in which case the overall unemployment rate also shows promise for this age group. Or she could mean Americans altogether, in which case I would refer you to the overall unemployment rate, the African-American unemployment rate sitting below 6%, the female unemployment rate, the Hispanic unemployment rate sitting at 4.7% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as the overall growing GDP hitting over 4%.
To summarize, yeah, Trump’s doing pretty good for all of us.
Now, let me return to the initial sentence of this article. Earlier, I mentioned that results matter. What exactly do I mean by that? Well, think about it. When else are we going to see Leftist millennial college students agree with Trump on anything?
The mainstream media “reports” everything that is happening (or not actually happening) as though it’s doomsday, it will doom Republicans in November and will lead to Trump’s impeachment. The media loves to pretend the world is on fire when a Republican is President and they make sure that they blame this "doomsday" on him, but when a Democrat is President, they go out of their way to ensure things that are actually going bad aren't blamed on the Democrat President.
Just think about the way the media reported things during Obama's presidency. They would report that things were bad, but they made the effort to drive any blame away from Obama and instead, placing it either on the Republican majority in Congress when they had it, or the Republican minority in Congress when they had it. Either way, everything wrong that happened was not the result of Obama’s socialistic rule that naturally and intentionally destroys societies but the result of the Republicans either pretending to fight or even being completely complacent.
In the case of Trump, it’s 180 degrees backwards. Everything bad that happens is Trump’s fault, even if he has no control over it. I mean, for crying out loud, they were blaming HURRICANES on him. That shows you the mental state of the media is quite poor if they blame THE WEATHER on Trump. It’s really no different from the crazies in the Muslim world who blame Israel for, well, the weather. It’s almost literally the exact same thing.
With the constant reporting of Trump basically being Hitler, it really is a marvel that these Leftist college students, who themselves do not necessarily like Trump, go as far as to properly give credit to Trump for the success he’s had regarding the economy.
And that’s why I say that results matter. These students, despite the fact that they agreed with Trump with varying levels of dismay, and even go as far as to mention what they don’t like about Trump (seemingly, it was mostly his tweets), can all see that Trump is actually doing a good job with the economy. Even if they don’t think he’s a good President, they can’t help but agree that he has helped with the economy.
Now, I could sit here and list the other achievements that show that Trump is a fantastic President not just in terms of the economy but many other aspects of leading the country, but that’s for another time. As it is, I want to take note of the fact that, despite the media and the Left’s best efforts to pin Trump as the worst President to have ever served office, they can’t successfully convince people to ignore every facet of reality.
The reality is that Trump’s economy is the best I have ever seen (being 22-years-old, that’s not saying much, particularly since I only have Obama’s economy for comparison) and that it’s showing no signs of slowing down.
From what I can gather, the only way the economy will slow down is if the Democrats win the House (especially if they win Congress). The disruption they would cause would send us back to the economic stagnation we were all too familiar with during the Obama administration. Sure, Trump can do some other things that will certainly help the economy (I still don’t believe Democrats could impeach Trump without a supermajority in the Senate), but things would definitely slow down significantly.
While I don’t necessarily believe that any of the interviewed college students will vote for a Republican candidate, the fact that they go as far as to acknowledge this is Trump’s economy and his to claim success over is significant.
Who knows? Maybe one of them will have a change of tune about the Democrat Party and vote Republican, either this November or sometime down the line. There certainly have been a lot of lifelong Democrat voters who have had enough with the Party of the ass and have decided to vote for Trump and/or other Republicans.
One can hope.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. With it, you can receive in your e-mail inbox a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as access to our online website. And the best part is that it’s completely free. With our current economic climate thanks to Trump (and more importantly, to God) it’s not like people couldn’t afford to pay for such a thing. However, I will not charge you a single cent for this sort of access. So make sure to sign up for our free weekly newsletter today!
One of the bigger stories for the past couple of weeks has been the accusation of Supreme Court pick Justice Brett Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted a woman decades ago while he was a teenager and intoxicated.
On the outset, this represents nothing more than a political hit job against Kavanaugh simply for being conservative and for being picked to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump, whom the Left abhors. And while this is accurate, I believe the stipulations for this particular case go well beyond this and highlights a problem in today’s world, a problem that Socrates himself saw in ancient Greece: a trend away from logic and into ignorance.
Let’s look at what we know from this case. The accuser has refused to come forward and face the man he’s accusing, she has passed a polygraph test, but cannot recall with accuracy where or even when this sexual assault even took place, only offering the vague timeline of sometime over 30 years ago. She presents no evidence to support her claims, no evidence to corroborate her claims and the two people she accuses, both Kavanaugh and someone she claims helped Kavanaugh, both have refuted her claims.
Not to mention that her lawyer has even boldly stated that it wasn’t the accuser’s job to corroborate her story and the accuser herself is a huge Leftist activist who has supported Obama, Hillary and the DNC.
So basically, this woman is saying the soon-to-be-confirmed (yes, I believe he will be confirmed no matter what) conservative Christian judge selected by President Donald Trump, whom the Left vehemently hates, floats a huge claim that she refuses to corroborate or present any evidence of, refuses to even step forth to face the man she’s accusing, cannot accurately recall the where or when of this event, and we’re just supposed to believe her?
This isn’t just an attack on a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court, it’s an attack on logic and people’s very intelligence.
But it perfectly represents what the #MeToo movement, and the Left overall, are in today’s world: feelings over facts.
It doesn’t matter that the woman’s accusation is incredibly shoddy, in both what she’s claiming and the timing for the claims. If it helps the Left in any matter, that’s fine. It’s this willingness to ignore logic in favor of moving a political agenda that drives closer a comparison between today’s America and Socrates’ Greece. Socrates feared that ignorance was prevalent and that logic was dwindling. He perfectly understood that civilized society could not survive ignorance. That ignorance turns civilization from a civilized society to a savage and barbaric society devoid of knowledge and logic, doomed to return to a primal form of life.
This is what the Left is doing. The #MeToo movement takes any woman’s accusations and takes them to be 100% truthful. It doesn’t matter if there is a lack of evidence or if the claims do not appear credible. In their minds, every claim by every woman is credible… unless a woman makes a claim against a top Democrat in the government.
While the Left tries to push the rhetoric that Kavanaugh’s accuser is telling the truth and is to be believed, they try to bury the far more credible and provable story that Keith Ellison has physically abused his ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan, despite the fact that Monahan has presented text and 911-call evidence to support her claim.
But since Keith Ellison is a top Democrat representative and key leader in the resistance movement against Donald Trump, the Left utterly ignores the woman’s plea.
Much like the double-standard that exists in the justice system regarding Republicans and Democrats (Republicans pay heftily for things Democrats do all the time), there is also a double-standard in the #MeToo movement’s unofficial justice system. Any woman who comes forward to accuse a Republican is immediately credible, regardless of lack of evidence or even willingness to corroborate her story under oath, but any woman who comes forward to accuse an important Democrat figure must be silenced.
And it’s not like this is anything new. With Justice Clarence Thomas, the Left completely believed Anita Hill’s story. With Bill Clinton, the Left tried to destroy the women who claimed he sexually abused them or worse. Anita Hill is considered a hero to the Left and women like Monica Lewinski, Juanita Broaddrick and others are either sluts or not to be believed, despite the evidence they present.
But it’s not just that there’s an issue of a double-standard. The very fact that there even is such a double-standard at play here highlights the Left’s willingness to move away from logic and reason and to complete and utter ignorance.
Not that this should come as any surprise to anyone. I’ve often said that the Left needs a perpetually dependent base for them to have power. This dependency isn’t just financial, but also intellectual. The Left feeds people crap like “we’re killing the planet” or “a fetus is not alive” and people eat it up, leading to people continuing to support, vote and keep these deceptive people in power.
The Left’s mission is to rule the people with an iron grip. Their desire to bring about socialism in this country only solidifies that fact as true. But things aren’t quite so simple. In order to achieve this, a number of things must happen, chief among which is the destruction of logic and wisdom, something that would set us back by millennia.
Think about it, people who regularly and effectively employ logic can recognize the illogical inconsistencies and fallacies of Leftist narrative. The Left REQUIRES people to simply believe their claims and will go to any lengths, most particularly lying, to get people to believe them.
Regarding Kavanaugh’s accuser, it’s completely illogical to believe her story. She does not present any sort of evidence, does not and will not corroborate her story, does not accurately remember key factors of her story which any ACTUAL victim of sexual abuse likely would, did not come forward about this story until THIRTY YEARS later when her supposed assaulter is about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States and has a history of being a Leftist activist and Democrat supporter.
It’s not for any of the first few reasons that the Left believes her. It’s because she is useful to the Left that they believe her.
If I were to accuse Senator Elizabeth Warren of having sexually abused me a decade ago, offered no evidence or witnesses to support my claim, offered not even any intention of corroborating my story and have been shown to be a far-Right conservative Christian who is anti-Left, anti-socialist and would vote against Warren were I to live in her state of Massachusetts, the Left would dismiss me as not credible and a liar seeking to perform character assassination on Warren. And they would be right to do so.
But because Kavanaugh’s accuser is a devout Leftist who can help the Left in their pitiful resistance efforts, the Left dismisses all the idiocy of the entire accusation.
It does not help further anyone’s intelligence, but rather flat out insults them. It marks a threat to logic and intelligence itself for it to be as successful as it is. It should have immediately been recognized as a political hit job and Kavanaugh should be well on his way to getting confirmed as scheduled without any possible or actual delays.
The fact that it wasn’t immediately tossed aside like Booker’s and Harris’ attacks against Kavanaugh is indicative of the problem Socrates faced in Athens: ignorance is taking over and logic and intelligence are being cast aside.
Like I said, allowing for ignorance to take hold of a civilization is to witness the regression of a civilized society being turned into a barbaric one.
“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. This newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles and gives you easier access to our online store. And the best part is that it’s 100% free. Unlike the Left who idiotically expect you to believe that free healthcare is actually free, I won’t lie to you about how free this newsletter is. All you have to do is put your email address in the allotted box on the right of the web page, click the button to subscribe and you’re done!
As much as I find it astonishing that I could ever agree with Michael Moore on something, it’s finally happened. While we disagree on virtually everything ever in relation to politics, we seemingly share a common belief: President Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
Now, there’s added stipulation to that idea, which is where we disagree once more. Moore believes Trump will win only if Democrats become complacent and believe they will win 2020 guaranteed. Such cockiness obviously back-fired in 2016 and Moore believes such cockiness, if it shows itself again and gets Democrat voters to not even bother voting because Trump will lose no matter what, will guarantee Trump gets re-elected.
Now, I did say I disagreed with that, but I should clarify that I don’t totally disagree. You see, he’s right in that Democrats will 100% lose in 2020 if they become as complacent as they were in 2016. However, he’s wrong, in my opinion, that avoiding such complacency will mean Trump loses in 2020. But the reason I argue this, I will share momentarily. First, I want to share what Moore actually said.
“Too many people in the summer of 2016 were so sure Hillary was going to win, saying no one is going to vote for this idiot. He could win again. I operate as if he is a two-term Trump. I have to. If you think any other way you are guaranteeing that whoever is going to run against him will lose.”
Moore went on to say that Trump is “an evil genius and he was able to outsmart the smartest person ever to run for president. He figured out how to win by losing the election. How did that happen? Historians are going to deal with this for years to come.”
Okay, there are a lot of things to get through with this. First, I don’t think I need to explain how Trump is not an “evil genius” as Moore describes him. He’s one of the most pro-life Presidents we’ve seen, he’s done his part to help out people who have suffered from hurricanes, he’s defended the people of Syria from their own government and he’s created millions of jobs and a booming economy that doesn’t show signs of slowing down.
Second, he thinks Hillary was the smartest person ever?! HAHAHAHAHAHA! If she’s the smartest person ever then I’m the tooth fairy.
Third, I have a few theories as to what he means by “he won by losing the election”. Either he is talking about losing the popular vote and still winning the election, which makes sense since he’s talked about it in the past (as has virtually every other salty Democrat and Leftist ever) or he’s talking about the hoax of a Trump-Russia collusion that “helped” Trump win an election he would have otherwise lost. Either could be the case, but I’m thinking the former is what he means. Either way, it’s dumb.
We have an electoral college for a reason. Trump won 304 delegates while Hillary won 227. Trump won 2,626 counties compared to Hillary’s 487. Take away California and you have FAR MORE votes for Trump than Hillary. The reason we have an Electoral College is so that a single state can’t decide who wins the presidency for the rest of the country. The Electoral College gives every state a voice.
And I didn’t hear these children whining and moaning when Mitt Romney won the popular vote in 2012. By their own logic and complaints, the candidate who puts dogs on top of station wagons should have won over Obama. And yet, not one of them complained about the Electoral College.
Moore then goes on to theorize that the person who wrote the anti-Trump op-ed for the New York Times was either Trump himself or “one of his minions.” I won’t discuss this because the entire thing is asinine and only reinforces our belief that there is a silent coup against Trump. This op-ed does more damage to the Left than to Trump.
Now, earlier I promised to explain why I think Moore is wrong about Democrats being able to beat Trump in 2020 if they go out to vote. I will explain this now.
Moore believes the sole reason Trump won was because Democrats stayed at home in 2016. While that certainly helped, I fundamentally believe Trump would have won even if they turned out to vote. Why? Because Hillary would’ve meant more stagnation for America. We did not want that and chose Trump to lead the country.
In 2020, Moore believes Democrats can beat Trump if they turn out to vote. Wrong again, for multiple reasons. First of all, while Trump was relatively unproven in 2016, Trump has done more than enough to show he is a competent leader and a fantastic President for this country both in terms of a massive and speedy economic revival (that’s Trump’s, not Obama’s) and in terms of foreign policy, with a nearly destroyed ISIS, a denuclearizing North Korea and a defunded Iran (though Obama probably has done lasting damage there anyway).
Second of all, and I think this might be just as important a point to make: no matter who wins in 2018, Trump will likely win in 2020.
Say that Republicans keep control of Congress. The economy won’t likely slow down, more jobs will be created and the country will keep improving and improving. With all the success that another two years will bring (remember, we still haven’t even hit 2 years into Trump’s presidency and he’s done more than the last 2 presidents combined) and the country knowing full-well who can take credit for this American revival, Trump will almost certainly win in 2020.
Now, say that Democrats win either the House or Senate, or even both. For all their talks about impeachment, actually getting the job done is virtually impossible. They need two-thirds vote in the Senate (and no nuclear option will be available), as well as the VP to vote in favor of impeachment. If he doesn’t, Congress will have to find the votes to override the VP’s veto. Unless the Democrats get a super-majority in the Senate, the chances of which become zero if they lose even one of their seats, Trump won’t be impeached.
However, that does not mean the Democrats are left in tatters. If they can’t impeach Trump, they’ll settle for disrupting everything he tries to do (which even then they won’t be able to disrupt absolutely everything) and slow down the MAGA agenda. If the Democrats win in 2018, Trump likely won’t be impeached, but things will not be pretty at all. Things will be slowed down, taxes will get raised and the economic revival we’ve been experiencing will dilute and we’ll go back to some level of stagnation.
That being said, Democrats winning in 2018 will all but guarantee Trump wins in 2020, because we all know he is a master at successfully pinning the blame where it must go. While other Republicans are complacent and don’t put the blame on Democrats, at least effectively, Trump will be able to successfully blame the Democrats for any damage they cause.
The only ways I see Trump losing in 2020 is either Trump majorly messes up and loses support, which is not too likely to happen or Democrats win a super-majority and successfully impeach Trump, in which case there wouldn’t even be a 2020 election for Trump.
But a lot of things would have to go right for the Democrats that I simply don’t think will happen.
Now, I’m not guaranteeing this by any means. A lot of things can happen between now and next year, let alone 2020. With all of that said, this should not be an excuse not to go out and vote Republican this November. Though the likelihood of Trump getting impeached is low, a Democrat House and/or Senate could derail the country and set us back years.
Losing 2018 wouldn’t be the end of the world but it’s not an ideal scenario. I’d rather have scummy Republicans who are fairly complacent but will keep taxes low and jobs coming in and will leave Trump alone for the most part than have scummy Democrats who are thirsty for blood from Trump (figuratively) and anyone who ever dared support him, and thus, dared defy them.
Republicans may not have done much to earn our votes, but Democrats have done everything to let us know those nut-jobs should not get anywhere close to public office, lest they be allowed to run this country in the direction of Venezuela.
While there are some good Republicans, I do not see a single good Democrat. I’d rather take a shot with an untrustworthy Republican who might do the right thing on occasion than vote for a Democrat whom I fundamentally know wishes to turn this country upside down and into something it was never founded to be.
At this point, this race isn’t about Republican vs. Democrat. It’s not Right vs. Left. It’s Good vs. Evil. I’m not saying all Republicans are good, but voting for Democrats, at this stage in the game, is effectively voting for evil. What I mean by good vs. evil is it would be good for Republicans to keep control of Congress, even if they still play political games and try to attack Trump on occasion. But allowing Democrats to have control of either chamber of Congress, or both chambers of Congress is allowing for evil to basically run amok.
Regardless, that’s to be discussed at a later date. For now, I just wanted to take note that Michael Moore, for as ignorant as he is, is not a complete moron. He’s at least smart enough not to get too confident in Democrats. For that, I’ll give him credit. For everything else, however, that’s a different story.
Even when I agree with Moore, I end up disagreeing with him to some level. Isn’t life just funny sometimes?
“Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.”
About a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how it’s ridiculous for Leftists to claim they are siding with God or that they are doing God’s work whenever they support or do the work of the devil. Though I did not put it quite that way, that’s basically the message of the article. Well, I guess we can consider this article a sort of sequel to that one.
Recently, Chelsea Clinton had an interview on SiriusXM with a panel of fellow feminazis. One of the hosts, Jess McIntosh, asked the former First Daughter: “How do you keep going in the hopes that your daughter doesn’t have to have this fight?” Referring to the fight to allow women to kill their unborn.
Chelsea replied: “Every day, I make the moral choice to be optimistic that my efforts and my energies, particularly when I’m fortunate enough to be in a partnership with fellow travelers, hopefully will make a difference.”
“And when I think about all of the statistics – that are painful – of what women are confronting today in our country, and what even more women confronted pre-Roe and how many women died and how many more women were maimed because of unsafe abortion practices, we just can’t go back to that.”
I will just say that I’m not surprised that Chelsea Clinton continues to use long-since debunked rhetoric and “statistics” to further her cause. As I mentioned in my article titled: “Feinstein Tried To Corner Kavanaugh On Roe Question And Failed”, according to a 1972 CDC report, the maternal death rate from abortions was only 39 in the United States. This means that, in the year before Roe v. Wade happened, only 39 women died due to having an abortion.
Going further, even two pro-choice people, Dr. Mary Calderone (former PP medical director) and Dr. Bernard Nathanson (former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL) admitted that the numbers they were using were fictitious.
Dr. Mary Calderone wrote in 1960: “About 90% of all illegal abortions are being done by physicians… whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions which comprise approximately 8%...”
Dr. Bernard Nathanson admitted his organization (NARAL)’s numbers of between 5 and 10 thousand women dying every year from back-alley abortions “were totally false… but in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted…”
So right off the bat, we can call out Chelsea on her b.s., knowing full-well that not too many women died due to abortions before 1973. It also reinforces that article’s point that it seems that abortion is to blame for women’s deaths or complications, not the legality of them.
Of course, that’s now where we’re ending this. I’ve yet to get to the most egregious part of the interview. Chelsea continued talking (and she seemingly gets her speaking skills from her mother), saying: “[outlawing abortion is] unconscionable to me, and also, I’m sure that this will unleash another wave of hate in my direction, but as a deeply religious person, it’s also unchristian to me.”
I have quite a few things to say about this, only a handful of which I allow myself to write in an article so as to not be vulgar.
First of all, I’m surprised she didn’t use this psychic power of precognition to let her mother know that she would lose the 2016 presidential election.
Second of all, what’s truly unchristian is supporting the cause of allowing women to end the life of their own children under the guise of “women’s healthcare”. Not only is this willful support of an evil practice that is literally meant to end a life, but it’s also deception in fooling people into supporting this. As egregious and disgusting as the Left is, they are conscious enough to recognize that only a handful of really messed up people would ever openly support the idea of killing children.
The Left always tried to dehumanize an unborn child, saying that “it’s not a kid, it’s a fetus.” Well, using all-knowing Google to do some basic research, fetus literally means: “an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.” Would you like to know the synonyms? They are: embryo (though technically that’s the gestation period that comes before being a fetus and after being a zygote) and UNBORN BABY/CHILD!
Fetus literally means child. So not a single heartless or ignorant Leftist can possibly tell me a fetus is not human or not a child. Even the Leftist overlords at Google disagree with such a point.
Not that it matters too much to the Left. Not many people would sign on to the idea of killing a child in the womb, so they have to disguise it to make it not look so horrible, so they say it’s “women’s healthcare”, even though healthcare is meant to do the opposite of killing someone. They say it’s “women’s liberation”, going by the insinuation that having a child is somehow comparable to being a slave.
There is nothing Christian about the killing of the innocent. For Chelsea to call herself “deeply religious”, it must mean something entirely different from what she thinks. No religion in the world, as far as I know, supports abortion. Even Islam does not support it and even forbids it unless the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger.
Which reminds me, how does pregnancy put someone’s life in danger? I could maybe understand if it made complications for someone who is extremely skinny or overall unhealthy, but most women, when they have children, tend to be relatively healthy. I don’t think I’ve seen any cases in which a woman HAD to terminate a pregnancy due to her life being at risk. I’ve only seen cases of women WILLINGLY ENDING THE PREGANCY BECAUSE IT’S INCONVENIENT!
Regardless, I’ll return to the main point. Willingly killing a child inside the womb is not something religious people tend to support. So either Chelsea belongs to a secret religious group that supports abortion (the Left religiously supports the idea that people affect the climate, so I guess that’s not too far-fetched) or she’s lying about being religious. She’s certainly lying about outlawing abortion being unchristian.
Now, the interview did not end there. Since Chelsea mentioned that she would get some flak over these comments, the interview went into attack mode, attacking the pro-life crowd.
First, Chelsea tried to make herself the victim by saying she has been “compared to slave owners and Nazis” over her positions on abortion. Well, considering Planned Parenthood is basically the legacy of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, a Nazi scientific institution focusing on anthropology, human heredity and eugenics, and that the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was basically Nazi Germany’s version of Planned Parenthood, only with the pretense that they were making the human race “better”, I’d say the comparisons are fairly accurate.
One of the panelists also directly attacked pro-life people, calling us “anti-choice” instead of pro-life, and calling us “ugly” and that “we love guns”. I guess that last part is true, though I don’t know what that has to do with this current conversation.
But the reality of the situation is that we’re FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE! And the reality is that the only people that are ugly here are the Left. I don’t usually attack someone based on their looks, and I won’t here now. What I’m talking about when in say they’re ugly is what’s in their hearts: evil.
What is truly ugly is trying to convince women that it’s okay to kill their unborn because “they are not alive yet” and that doing so is a kick to the “patriarchy” or some such nonsense. Abortion is nothing short of death. Abortionists are glorified killers. And those who support this effectively support the death of human life.
No matter what way anyone says, that it’s “humane” or some other bullcrap, nothing will ever convince me that abortion is right in any case.
Oh, and if it’s “humane”, wouldn’t that imply that whatever is in the womb is ALIVE?! Because you don’t humanely kill what is technically not alive. We humanely kill animals when they become too old or when they get run over on the streets and are still alive. To say that abortion is humane is 1) erroneous, considering the methods of abortion and that PP has sold the parts of fetuses and likely still do and 2) would be conceding the point that a fetus is alive. You don’t do anything humane to something that isn’t alive.
“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies at the gate.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike Chelsea Clinton’s fake religion, the contents of this newsletter are 100% Christian, conservative and pro-American. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store. Check it out today!
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...