Often times, whenever there is a tragic shooting that the entire nation talks about, such as the most recent one at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that claimed the lives of 11 Jews, the Left will claim that the argument of a “good guy with a gun” is not real and does not happen - that it’s largely a hoax.
And to make sure they can continue saying that sort of thing, they will avoid stories like the one I am about to share with you. A story where a good guy with a gun potentially saved the lives of countless people at a McDonald’s in Birmingham, Alabama.
On Saturday night, the same day as the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, a masked gunman opened fire in a McDonald’s in Birmingham. WBRC-TV covered the story, saying that the gunman entered the McDonald’s “when an employee opened the door for a father and his sons to leave.”
The shooter “then opened fire in the restaurant. At that point, the father began shooting at him.”
The father, the shooter, and one of the sons were all hit, but only the shooter died, with the father and the son sustaining “non-life threatening injuries.”
At this time, authorities do not know if the shooter was simply robbing the restaurant or targeting a specific employee.
Unfortunately, there does not appear to be CCTV footage of the incident, so I cannot exactly tell one way or the other. From the description given by WBRC-TV, the employee opened the door to allow for the family to leave, at which point the shooter entered and opened fire.
That appears to be, from the description, the chronological sequence of events in this story, so it appears that the shooter did not intend to rob the restaurant, but rather intended to shoot up the place and leave as many people dead as possible. If he were robbing the place, he would’ve let the family go, so there would be less people to worry about attacking him or calling the police.
And considering this was late at night, I don’t think there were that many people inside.
Now, from the apparent sequence of events, I find it miraculous that the father was quick enough to pull out his own gun and fire back at the shooter. Not knowing fully how the whole ordeal went down, and only picturing it from the description given by the local news source, I find it incredible that the father reacted quickly enough to see the gun (if the gun was even out before the shooter went in, which it must’ve been the case), pull out his own gun and start firing back, while he and one of his sons took at least one shot themselves.
I imagine there are a few details missing from this since that would simply have to be next to inhuman reactions to be as effective as he was while sustaining as little damage as he did.
Regardless, that’s for the people to know and for us to wonder (unless more details arise).
The father, as is to be expected, will not face any charges for his actions, according to local authorities.
In the aftermath, one of the employees told WBRC-TV that he was “feeling grateful”. “Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare.”
Another employee added: “He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview.”
As incredible and fascinating as this story is, it has next to no chance of being covered by the fake news media. And if it does, they will likely entirely ignore the father having saved the day, or at least mention him as though his contribution had been next to irrelevant.
The reason for this is that this largely helps support the notion and argument that conservatives use that a good guy with a gun can beat a bad guy with a gun. That the answer to gun crimes like these aren’t to restrict law-abiding citizens of their rights to bear arms but to help them protect themselves with less restrictive gun laws because there will always be bad people with guns. Just look at Chicago, the city with the strictest gun control laws in America.
But aside from this one story alone, there are countless other instances when a good guy with a gun saves the day, either by saving his/her own life, property or other people.
According to a study by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which was ordered by the anti-gun Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence.”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
A different study suggests that there are over 1 million (1,029,615, to be exact) DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” but excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” According to Paul Hsieh, a conservative columnist on Forbes who wrote about this subject using both of those studies, says that the second study “[yields] an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone ‘almost certainly would have been killed’ if they ‘had not used a gun for protection.’”
In other words, people tend to protect themselves when faced with a deadly threat, particularly when they are armed. It’s very common, but it feels as though it isn’t given the amount of times the Left covers a shooting taking place in a school, an office, a church/synagogue, etc. which most of them are typically gun-free zones.
This story, alongside many that the media refuses to cover, serves to further support the notion that the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is through a good guy with a gun. It’s really not something even the Left should be able to argue.
When a shooting happens, who do people tend to call? Cops aka good guys with guns. Either they call the cops or security to deal with the threat. And both entities tend to have guns.
So the gun isn’t the problem here. It’s the sociopathic and evil individual perpetrating the evil deed.
In the UK, you may not see an awful lot of shootings (though they still happen), but you do see an awful lot of knife attacks, acid attacks, vehicular manslaughter, etc. That goes to show that the tool of use is largely irrelevant. Bad people will do bad things with whatever they have available to them.
The biggest difference between this story and any other story of a shooting is that there was a good guy with a gun right there to step up and eliminate the threat, even if it comes at a cost.
Thankfully, the father sustained injuries that are not life-threatening, but things could’ve turned far worse had he not had his weapon on him.
Gun control doesn’t keep bad people from owning or getting guns. It keeps good people from protecting themselves, having to hurdle through tons of bureaucratic bullcrap just to have the hope of being able to protect themselves should the need ever arise.
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free. No hidden fees and nothing to pay for down the line. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Over the weekend, an anti-Semitic (not to mention very anti-Trump, which we’ll get to later) nut-job shot up the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, reportedly shouting a phrase long-used by anti-Semites: “all Jews must die.”
The killer (who will not be named as to avoid inadvertently giving him any sort of fame or "glory") killed 11 people in the massacre.
But with this having been a mass shooting, the Left jumped at the chance to blame Trump for this. However, there exists one massive problem that the Left simply could not hope to overcome.
Actually, there are a couple of problems, but one of them ties into the other.
First, and perhaps least important of the two: the shooter was anti-Trump. He had even tweeted: “There is no #MAGA, as long as there is a kike infestation.” You can tell the second problem is quite important and a bit overwhelming for the Left if THIS problem is considered the less important one of the two.
The guy was anti-Trump largely because of the second problem the Left faces in their rhetoric and narrative to blame Trump: Trump has been the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel President in American history.
Let’s begin with Trump’s statement following the shooting regarding anti-Semitism: “Anti-Semitism and the widespread persecution of Jews represents one of the ugliest and darkest features in human history. Anti-Semitism must be condemned and confronted everywhere and anywhere it appears.”
This is a strong statement totally disavowing any sort of anti-Semitism in America and pushing hard against it. But that’s not all. Recently, he even said that whomever seeks the destruction of the Jews, we (America) would seek THOSE PEOPLE’S destruction.
Plus, let’s not forget that Trump did what other Presidents before him only promised to do: he moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.
Let’s not forget that Trump has, throughout the 2016 campaign and beyond, been a great friend of Jewish people and a great friend for Israel.
Let’s not forget that Trump cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, which is hell-bent in taking over Jerusalem and exterminating the Jews via acts of terrorism.
Let’s not forget that Trump dismantled and completely tore apart the Iran nuclear deal, which is not only an action that greatly benefits the U.S., but also ensures Israel’s most notorious enemy does not get more and more money from America to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
Let’s not forget that Trump deported a Nazi in hiding when both Bush and Obama could have, but failed or did not care to do.
Trump has been very friendly towards Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has overall been a great friend of Israel.
To label Donald Trump as an anti-Semite because of the actions by an anti-Semitic, anti-Trump nut-job is asinine and wrong.
That is particularly the case when the people who label Trump as an anti-Semite are some of the very same people who defend or ignore Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic ramblings, and who have long stressed that Israel be contained and that it bow to its Palestinian enemies.
Barack Obama, in the aftermath of the terrorist attack, tweeted: “We grieve for the Americans murdered in Pittsburgh. All of us have to fight the rise of anti-Semitism and hateful rhetoric against those who look, love, or pray differently. And we have to stop making it so easy for those who want to harm the innocent to get their hands on a gun.”
Ignoring the obvious and pathetic call for stricter gun control laws (which never help anyone and only increase the likelihood of these things happening), this is the same guy who has been photographed smiling next to Louis Farrakhan, who recently said he was not anti-Semite, but “anti-termite”, basically dehumanizing Jews and labeling as nothing more than a pest to be rid of.
This is the same guy who worked towards making a deal with Iran to give them billions of dollars “to build roads and bridges”, which would be the most laughable pile of b.s. if that pile of b.s. hadn’t been so dangerous and hadn’t likely led Iran to accelerate their nuclear program.
In stark contrast with Donald Trump, Obama never was much of a friend to Israel. Quite the opposite could even be argued.
With what Donald Trump has done for Jewish people and for Israel, the Left cannot realistically and successfully label him as an anti-Semite.
While the desire to build a wall in the southern border could be misconstrued as being racist (it isn’t, even a little), they cannot misconstrue anything Trump says and/or does as being anti-Semitic.
What he has done as POTUS is greatly beneficial to Israel and the Jewish people, and that is not bound to end. The only Jewish people who are against Trump right now are simply Leftist partisan hacks who never liked him in the first place and barely even appear to be faithful Jews, considering one of them appeared to not have even liked Trump moving the embassy to Israel. (*ahem* Julia Ioffe saying she hopes the embassy move was “worth it” when attacking Jews who voted for Trump *ahem*).
And this is all without even focusing on the fact that the reason the shooter shot up the synagogue was because he was ticked off at Trump for being too Jew-friendly. So the media can’t even characterize the guy as having been right-winger or a Trump supporter because he was outspokenly anti-Trump due to the POTUS being so pro-Israel and pro-Jew.
At the end of the day, what the Left wants from this is not at all what is going to happen. This, alongside the mail bombings of the previous week, is supposed to characterize Trump as being culpable for the dangerous political climate we live in. This shooting, not having been political but rather religious, can’t do that.
Not to mention that since Trump is very pro-Israel, he cannot realistically be characterized as anti-Semitic. Sure, the Left could try and still blame him (they will certainly do that), but when the rhetoric that Trump is anti-Semitic falls flat on its face because of its absurdity and false nature, they will try to focus a little more on the gun and call for more gun control.
I, for one, hope they will continue to try and characterize Trump as anti-Semitic. It makes my job easier to flat out deny their claims and make counter-arguments with undeniable-on-all-sides facts.
Let’s see if the Left takes the bait on this one and continues with this asinine rhetoric.
“’I ask, then, has God rejected His people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.'”
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. No hidden fees whatsoever. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Some time ago, I wrote an article talking about how insanely hypocritical it was for Democrats and Leftists to say that they are “doing the Lord’s work” or something to that extent when opposing Trump, or simply being their Leftist selves. Well, that also applies to establishment Republicans who for some reason feel as though they can speak for God now.
In an interview with CNN, John Kasich said the following:
“You know, we have a caravan coming north. We don’t want all those people coming across our border, and there are ways to deal with it. I believe if we could check those who are legitimately in need of asylum, could be vetted before they even get to the border. But you know what? We’re born in America. You know how lucky we are to be born in America and not be born in Guatemala where they would say to your daughter, you know, if you don’t do what we want, we will rape your daughter or we will kill your son if he’s not a drug mule? Now they’re marching north, and you know what? It could easily have been all of us, that we’re in the caravan, that we’re marching north trying to save our families and save our children… If we have been spared… by the grace of God, let us be appreciative, let us count our blessings, and let us reach out to those who have less. And let’s stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight, the trouble, and the problems of others. It is not right. And the Lord doesn’t want it…”
That is a lot to cover, so let’s go little by little. Overall, I both agree and disagree with what he is saying.
People born in the U.S. SHOULD count their blessings for being born in the greatest nation on Earth. And we SHOULD try and help people who need help. In fact, doing so is very much a Christian thing to do.
However, there is a difference between helping people and being forced to take care of them.
Not to mention that the border wall isn’t meant to drive away immigrants. It’s meant to drive away ILLEGAL immigrants.
John Kasich believes that we should “help” these people. The problem comes in the fact that it’s likely dangerous people, like members of MS-13, are part of this caravan. Letting these people in means many, and I mean MANY, dangerous people seeing our compassion and exploiting it, entering the country and hurting Americans.
We should not be helping people if that comes at the expense of America and Americans. And we certainly should not be guilt-tripped into helping people who very well could come in to exploit our system at best and harm Americans at worst.
Besides, let’s not ignore that we do help people, or at least their countries of origin. We give over $120 million to Honduras alone annually (though that number is bound to come down after this). So our government does try and help other countries.
But it shouldn’t fall on us to babysit them. It shouldn’t fall on us to take these people in, particularly in this way, and sacrifice Americans’ livelihoods, jobs, etc. We have to take care of our people first, and that’s not what the Democrats and establishment Republicans seem to want.
We especially should not be made to believe that it is our fault that other countries are poorer than us. Socialism is killing Venezuela. It’s also slowly, but surely killing other countries as well. I’ve mentioned in the past that the only time Argentina was prosperous was when it abandoned socialism at least economically, through deregulation and such.
We are as rich and plentiful as we are because our capitalist system of government and economics are built to help people be prosperous. Key word “help”. It doesn’t guarantee or make it a right that people be prosperous. You have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to given happiness.
But let’s focus a bit more on Kasich bringing God into the mix. He claims that God doesn’t want us to surround ourselves in walls. He’s wrong on this as well. You have to keep in mind what the wall is meant to do. Like I said earlier, it’s not meant to keep immigrants out. It’s meant to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
It’s meant to secure our border and protect our people. It’s a national security issue just as much as an immigration issue. Not to speak for God, but I believe He would want us to be safe. After all, He instructed and led Nehemiah to build a wall too. And Jerusalem currently has a wall that keeps Hamas and other Islamic terrorists out of the promised land (that was promised to the Jews, not Muslims or any other type of Gentile).
Why have those walls? To protect the people inside. That’s what Trump’s border wall is meant to do.
We are a country that welcomes immigrants. Heck, we ARE a nation of immigrants. But the difference between the immigrants that came from Europe and the ones that are marching to our border is that the world was far different, with far different laws and dangers to be met.
Not to mention that the pilgrims set out for America to be free to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution from the Crown.
On the other hand, these illegals are fleeing their crappy countries to enter the country illegally and forcefully, very much like an invading force.
A border wall can stop such an invading force, and there is no honest person who should oppose prioritizing the safety of our people.
I won’t be too harsh on Kasich here because he is not completely wrong with what he’s saying. He’s wrong about the purpose of wanting a wall. He’s certainly wrong about what he thinks Trump’s intentions are with a wall. But he’s not wrong that we should help people.
However, that’s what we’re already doing. Allowing an invading force to enter the country like this will not help those people and certainly will not help us. If we don’t help ourselves, how could we possibly help others?
Regarding the caravan itself, I have already written an article surrounding that topic, so there’s not much else for me to say that would be too different from what I said in that article.
The larger point I wanted to make here is that Kasich is wrong in believing God doesn’t want a border wall. I won’t claim to know what God does or does not want. I cannot fully understand what God wants because I cannot fully understand Him, being one of His creations with a limited mind. However, I do believe He wants us to be safe from the dangers of this world and a border wall would help towards that end.
Not to mention that, in order to help people, they also have to help themselves. The governments of Central America, maybe with some exceptions, are largely central in their power. Meaning that government is everything and they keep expanding it, bringing in more socialism into the mix. We want to help other countries, but those countries also have to do their part in implementing a system where they are not reliant on us for so much.
I’m all for helping others. But that help should not be a one-way street. That help should not be rewarded with being invaded by illegals, likely many of whom look to exploit our system all-the-while trashing it and us, and maybe even harming people by raping young girls and/or killing them.
America and Americans must always come first. I want to help Americans first. Otherwise, how could we help anyone else?
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to 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 delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I feel compelled to say this right now: What I will mostly be talking about is largely a conspiracy theory. As such, it should not be taken to be the absolute truth. However, the reason for me to write this is because the timing and the magnitude of this targeting of Democrats is highly suspicious to me and I have some theories to go along with these stories.
As you read this article, please keep in mind that these are merely unproven thoughts and theories that may never even be proven.
Over the last few days, a number of suspicious packages have been delivered to prominent members of the Democrat Party and to the news media, particularly CNN. Most of these packages appear to have been pipe bombs, with some having been suspicious powder.
Thankfully, no one is hurt. At least one of the bombs appears to have been a fake one, according to the New York Times, who cited experts who said that the bombs were “the kind more typically depicted on television and in movies, rather than devices capable of detonating.”
A site called Law and Crime released an x-ray picture of one of the pipe bombs, which shows wires sticking out of both ends of the bomb. We know this is not a functioning pipe bomb because pipe bombs do not have wires sticking out of both sides. They are more like dynamite, with the wire sticking out of only one side.
Now, let’s consider who these packages were sent to. They were sent to former President Barack Obama, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (and thus, former POTUS Bill Clinton), Rep. Maxine Waters, former AG Eric Holder, a CNN studio in New York, former VP Joe Biden and George Soros.
None of these people, except for Maxine Waters have strong political power, not even Biden. George Soros’s power comes through his money in affecting politics, but he does not have direct political power, at least in the same way that Waters does. It’s important to understand this because the Left’s rhetoric is that it was a right-winger who sent those packages. If it really were a right-winger, what strategic advantage would Republicans have for someone sending bombs to anyone, let alone people who are under conservatives’ radar? It wouldn’t make any sense in the least, particularly done this way.
No right-winger in his right mind would send a bomb to Democrats 2 weeks before an election if they were hoping for Republicans to win. No right-winger in his right mind would send a bomb to anyone in the first place, but still.
Let’s also consider the timing of these packages. For one, they were sent within days, and in some cases, within hours of each other. They were also sent 2 weeks before one of the biggest elections of our lifetimes. AND they were also sent shortly after Trump, rightfully, capitalized on the migrant caravan heading towards our border, which as I have said in a previous article, could help Trump and Republicans in the midterms.
All of these packages were sent to well-known, but next to irrelevant people within the Democrat Party and the news media. While it would take a crazy person to send bombs to people through the mail, it would take an especially moronic crazy person to send bombs to high-profile figures on the Left and expect the packages not to be intercepted and kept away from the supposedly intended targets.
All of this, alongside the Left’s quick capitalization of placing the blame on Trump (which is frankly expected, but still significant) that makes me seriously question this entire thing.
Over the last couple of years, and particularly the last few months, we have seen an increase in violence coming from the Left directed towards the Right. This sort of thing tends to have an effect at the polling booths. I certainly know that I will vote Republican at least partly because of the Left’s behavior over the past couple of months and years. So I don’t think it’d be a far-fetched theory, though very much a conspiracy theory without proof, to believe that this is largely theatrics meant to garner momentum for Democrats.
Again, we have to consider the fact that the Left has been acting horrendously these last few months particularly, and we have to also consider the fact that the migrant caravan would garner momentum for Republicans.
Have you noticed how the caravan, which has reportedly swelled to over 14,000 illegals, has largely disappeared from the news-cycle apart from news of Trump sending troops to the border?
With all of this in mind, I would not be surprised if this all turned out to be theatrics and a hoax to drive people to vote against Trump’s “anti-media” and anti-Leftist rhetoric.
Again, you have to consider that the media has capitalized in blaming Trump for all of this. Some are directly blaming him for sending the bombs, while others are marginally more “sensible” and are blaming his rhetoric for “emboldening” a crazy right-winger now dubbed the “MAGA bomber”, with that hashtag trending on Twitter.
Given the nature of the Left to do this sort of thing to Republicans, and given that they often blame things on Trump and other conservatives without a shred of evidence (see how they treated Kavanaugh), and I can’t help but think that this was largely orchestrated to drive people to vote Democrat and to perhaps even justify the actual attacks happening against conservatives.
Let’s not forget that the Deep State told George W. Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq when there were none. Let’s not forget that the Left, with the help of the media, often fabricate stories to target conservatives.
The fact that the people targeted were all well-known Leftists, most whom do not have political power so there’d be no real point for a right-winger to target them, these packages have been delivered at a high frequency and that it all comes at an opportune time for the Left, 2 weeks before the election (remember the slew of women saying Trump sexually assaulted them 3 weeks before the 2016 election?) all leads me to be highly suspicious of this entire thing.
Once again, I really must insist that no one take this to be the reality of the situation. This is largely a conspiracy theory with no proof of being the absolute truth. I am merely expressing my suspicions regarding this entire thing. I am not ruling out the possibility of a crazed right-winger actually perpetrating these things. But I particularly must insist that this is not conservatives’ MO, and that this is pretty exclusively what Leftists tend to do, so that draws more suspicion.
As a rule of thumb, I do not trust what the MSM tells me about anything. I especially do not trust people who choose to capitalize on tragedy (or potential tragedy) for political gain as the Left often does and as many people including CNN President Jeff Zucker, lunatic actor Jim Carrey, 1/1024th conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin and others are doing.
So any sort of story that puts the blame on Trump, his rhetoric surrounding the fake news media (there’s a word for what the media is doing regarding all of this. I believe it is called “irony”), or anything that tries to, without proof, put the blame on Trump and/or conservatives I will simply not believe.
My belief is that this is largely theatrics meant to garner momentum for Democrats now that they are having actual doubts about their coveted “blue wave”. It could even be meant to serve as justification for the horrendous behavior they have shown towards conservatives.
By no means am I claiming that that’s the reality of the situation. I cannot prove that this is what is actually happening. I am merely suggesting that all of the circumstances surrounding these events are far too suspicious for me to take at face value.
But as I cannot prove anything regarding whether or not the Left is making all of this up for political gain (even if the circumstances point to that), all I will do for now is pray that this sort of thing does not happen to anyone else, Republican or Democrat, and that there will be a Christian revival that will lead to this sort of scare to no longer happen, particularly with such frequency.
“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is 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. No hidden fees and no future payments to be made. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Going through conservative media sources to find inspiration for an article, I found a piece on the Daily Wire talking about a study that shows about a quarter of Millennials (sample size less than 800) reportedly show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Let me tell you, I can count on one hand the amount of times I found immediate inspiration by an article.
I will explain what I mean by that in a moment. First, I will give you the context of the situation.
A recent psychological study from San Francisco State University suggests that 25% of Millennials attending Arizona State University “reported experiencing ‘clinically significant’ levels of stress, along with other symptoms of PTSD,” according to the Daily Wire.
According to the Daily Wire, the students “were evaluated using an ‘Impact of Event’ scale, which measures stress levels at various times following a major traumatic event…”
It’s used for events such as a shooting, a terrorist attack, etc. So we already see some indication of the overreaction that is coming from these millennial students, having to use a scale that is typically used for tragic events to evaluate someone’s level of stress after an ELECTION.
Melissa Hagan, the lead researcher, said in a statement accompanying the release of the study: “The scale is used to gauge the extent to which individuals have been impacted by an event in such a way that it might lead to diagnosable post-traumatic stress disorder. What we were interested in seeing was, did the election for some people constitute a traumatic experience? And we found that it did for 25 percent of young adults.”
The study found that those who identify as a minority, are female, are Democrat, and/or are non-Christian reported having the highest stress levels.
The study says: “Black and nonwhite Hispanic students scored higher on the assessment than their white classmates, for instance. Gender, political affiliation and religion all played even larger roles. Females scored about 45 percent higher than males on the assessment, and Democrats scored more than two and a half times higher than Republicans.”
Now, I can understand (to an extent) Democrats being stressed about that. When Barack Obama was reelected President of the United States in 2012, the first election I actually payed attention to, I was sad, depressed and even stressed and worried for the future of the country.
At the time, I was a Mitt Romney supporter (the first and last time I will support an establishment Republican), and I was confident that he would win. But given that he was pretty soft with Obama after the first debate, even calling him a “good guy”, that gave little reason for Republicans to vote for the guy. I was disappointed at the time, and definitely sad and stressed out over Obama’s victory. But I would never, in a million years, even pretend to believe I suffered from PTSD because of that.
Earlier in the article, I mentioned that there have been few times when an article inspired me this easily. This is why. Because no one suffers from PTSD BECAUSE OF AN ELECTION!
Here’s a quick list of people who justifiably suffer from PTSD:
Nowhere on that list will you find “snowflakes who don’t like the guy who became President.”
To say that these children, and I mean that in every sense of the word, suffer from PTSD, even a little, because of the results of an election is asinine and is making a mockery of those who actually suffer from PTSD.
A hundred years ago, kids my age would be fighting in trenches during WWI. Nearly 80 years ago, kids my age would be fighting Nazis and Japs. 40 years ago, kids my age would be fighting Vietcong.
By comparison, my generation is pathetic, and that’s putting it lightly. The people who fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. all were not much older than us, and all went through things we could not even imagine.
When I was in high school, one of my teachers told the story of his dad speaking at my teacher’s school when my teacher was a kid. My teacher’s dad was there to tell the children stories of what he did while in Vietnam. However, my teacher’s dad insisted and ensured my teacher would not hear those stories. Obviously, this made my teacher curious and asked his dad why he wouldn’t tell him those stories.
His dad replied: “Because I don’t have to look those kids in the eyes every day.” And that was the end of that. My teacher never again asked him about that.
The reason I tell you this is because that made me think “what horrors did his dad go through to not be able to look his son in the eyes if he told him?” Just hearing the story from my teacher’s side reached me to my core. I felt sorry for my teacher’s father and made me a bit more aware of the unspeakable horrors that can be found in this world if we look for them.
What my teacher’s dad did in Vietnam was probably horrendous. What he saw was probably horrendous.
But seeing the results of this study, I can’t help but laugh in disdain, thinking about these millennials: “You fools. You have no idea how good you have it if THIS is stressing you out.”
I could spend another article talking about how I’m not surprised that Democrat students feel this way (again, to an extent) but that I find it incredulous, and a bit suspicious, that only the white, Christian, Republicans were not stressed out about it, but I felt the need to bring some perspective to the mix, rather than argue smaller things like “Hispanics shouldn’t be stressed out over this” or “black people/women/leprechauns should not be stressed out over this”.
I wanted to focus mostly on the fact that it’s soldiers and those who fought and saw unspeakable horrors, maybe even committed some unspeakable horrors, who actually and justifiably suffer from PTSD.
I can’t imagine the kind of thing war veterans have gone through. The things they’ve seen and done. So for these kids to take PTSD so lightly that they think they can get it from being upset over an election that did not go their way honestly pisses me off.
And I do not mean to swear like that; I typically try to say “tick off” rather than that word, but that’s just how angry this sort of thing makes me. I truly meant that earlier thought of “these kids have no idea how good they have it.”
They would not survive a war. And I do not mean that they would get killed. That’s a probability, yes, but I mostly mean they would not have the character necessary to withstand the hardships that come with war. Even I probably could not. I have lived a fairly privileged life. The most stressful thing that I’ve had to deal with this week is writing a 750-1000 word essay where I needed to use 5 scholarly sources instead of the usual 2-3.
That tells me I do not have the mental fortitude to withstand what people in the military go/have gone through. What people in war have gone through. But at least I do not pretend that I have PTSD over that assignment. And at least I understand the fact that veterans have gone through things I could not even imagine and would have to personally experience to understand.
I’m not trying to say I’m better than these snowflakes, but I am stressing the point that we have a lot to thank our military, past and present, for.
Now, I will relegate to feeling sorry over my pathetic generation, who are now earning the antithesis of the nickname given to the generation that went through the Great Depression and fought in WWII. If that generation is called “the greatest generation”, then mine is “the worst generation”. And it’s completely earned given the results of this study.
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. And since you are not a millennial (or at least one that gets easily triggered by the dumbest things) you won’t get PTSD from reading my articles, which are full of conservative, Christian, pro-Trump and pro-America messages. And the best part is that it comes completely free of charge. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
A show of hands, who here actually believes that Obama doesn’t make stuff up? That he tells the truth as often as he speaks and that he never hides the truth or tries to circumvent it? I would seriously hope not a single one of you raised your hands (not that I could tell anyhow), because Obama is the closest thing we’ve seen to a real-life Pinocchio, to the point even Left-wing PolitiFact said Obama was lying when he said those infamous words: “if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.”
Recently, in a seemingly very feeble attempt at creating any sort of excitement for Democrat voters, the former President held an event in Nevada (which could barely draw flies). During this event, he said: “Unlike some, I actually try to state facts. I believe in facts. I believe in a fact-based reality and a fact-based politics. I don’t believe in just making stuff up.”
Really? Does he want me to exhume the skeletons in his closet? Because I will do just that.
Back in March of 2017, which seems like an eternity ago at this point, I wrote an article asking the question of whether or not Obama deserved to go to jail. Of course, I ultimately said that he absolutely does (actually, it was literally the first thing I said). But in that article, I briefly went over a couple of things he did that were illegal that should land him in jail.
I talked about Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Operation Choke Point (the attempt at illegally shutting down gun stores) and the ordering of shutting down a business because the factory was non-union.
But that barely touches on the scandal that was the Obama Presidency. I mentioned that the site I got the information from, Thetruthdivision.com, listed 78 illegal things that Obama did as POTUS. This was before even knowing he used the FBI and DOJ to try to affect a presidential election.
But what we want to focus on here is not necessarily the illegal things he did, but the lies he’s told. Lies like “you like your doctor, you keep your doctor” and such.
He lied about Syria having chemical weapons, as we discovered early last year.
He lied about enforcing a “red line” against Russia.
He lied about not even having any scandals as POTUS (a lie he told earlier this year).
He lied about calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Back in 2013, he said: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
He never used the word “terrorism” to describe the attack. Time and time again, interview after interview, he would try and circumvent calling it a terrorist attack, saying that they were “investigating” the incident.
The reason for doing this is so that he could claim he did what Bush couldn’t do and that is to stop terrorism. Calling the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate a terrorist attack would put an end to that ridiculous claim. Of course, only a year or so later, Obama allowed for ISIS to grow to replace al-Qaeda as our biggest enemy in the Middle East, so that in itself put an end to his ridiculous claim, but he had already gotten reelected by that point, so it didn’t matter.
He would also constantly lie about unemployment going down, when millions of Americans were out of work.
Even PolitiFact and the Washington Post list many of Obama’s lies, with the WaPo listing ten of the biggest lies Obama told as President and with PolitiFact using up 4 webpages to list a number of lies Obama has told.
And now, Obama is lying about lying. How rich is that?
It’s really no wonder he can hardly draw in any people at an event he is highlighting. If you’ve seen the pictures of Obama’s Nevada rally in contrast with Trump’s MAGA rally in Houston, Texas, you can see the massive difference in enthusiasm.
Barack Obama, once considered a rockstar of the Democrat Party, can hardly draw in people at a relatively small venue.
Donald Trump, the current President of the United States who has been working for the past 2 years to Make America Great Again and delivering results, manages to fill to the brim an arena where the Houston Rockets, an NBA team, play half the season. The Toyota Center can only seat 19,000 people. It’s reported that “requests for tickets topped 100,000 people”, according to the Daily Wire.
And you also see pictures of Trump and Cruz supporters filling the streets of Houston to attend the rally, with many also opting to camp out near the stadium.
Why the massive difference? For one, Trump is Making America Great Again, which needed to be made great again largely because of the extensive damage that Obama caused in his 8 years in office.
I believe I have said in the past that, had the media reported on Obama the same way they report on Trump, or even if they reported honestly about him, he would be remembered as the worst President this country had ever seen. That while he likely would’ve won in 2008 because people were very dissatisfied with Bush, and by extension, Republicans, he likely would’ve lost the 2012 election.
Why? Because not only did his policies ensure to cause lasting damage to the country and its people, but because he lied about everything, with the help of the mainstream media.
Let’s not forget one massive lie that Obama told that likely tops the Obamacare lie. Obama lied about the Iran nuclear deal. And he got the media, with the help of John Kerry, to lie about it to the people.
It’s this, along with many other instances of lies that cover up the destruction of the country, that helped Trump get elected and will likely help him get reelected in 2020.
Obama is a pathological liar, but now, he’s lost much of his power to fool people. The media will still cover for him, of course, but even they have lost all credibility with the American people.
No wonder Obama can’t draw in flies with the manure he utters.
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
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. Unlike the lies Obama would constantly tell, and the lies the Left continues to make, when I say that this is free, that means it’s free. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the biggest stories this week, which will likely continue being as big, or even bigger in the days and weeks to come, is the fact that anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 illegal immigrants are marching towards the United States, likely seeking “asylum”. It will soon be clear why I am putting that in quotation marks.
Anyway, I say that the caravan is in that range because I have seen multiple different numbers. Many report 5,000 to 7,000, while others like the Daily Wire report 10,000, so it’s not entirely clear which number is most accurate. But regardless of the actual number, that is a lot of people staging what can only be described as an invasion, even if it is an unarmed (though I imagine many people are armed) invasion of the U.S., which is the reason Trump is perfectly justified in using the military to stop this caravan, if that is the route he opts in taking.
However, reading the title, you must know that there is something within this story that yours truly sees as a good thing. I can assure you, I am not becoming a Leftist. I’d rather bathe in a tub of acid than be a Leftist.
I am, however, seeing what can be considered the big picture here. Allow me to explain.
Reading the news of the caravan starting up, leaving Honduras, swelling in size, and forcefully pushing past Mexican police and MPs, how does that make you feel? I imagine disturbed at the very least, or even downright terrified. If so, you can be safe in knowing that you are not alone in this.
While the Democrats might see this caravan as a good thing (without necessarily saying that outright) and while they might choose to ignore it as though it’s not happening, we can’t help but acknowledge it and see it as a very bad thing.
Let’s not beat around the bush. This is an invasion. With this many people, likely being helped in being fed, sheltered, etc. (likely by George Soros, but I can’t prove that), all seeking “asylum”, you can’t help but think of this as an invasion. And by the way, I put asylum in quotation marks because these people aren’t seeking asylum from their own countries. If you’ve seen the pictures, you’ll see some people waving the Honduran flag, the Mexican flag and whatever country’s flag these people are from.
If they were seeking asylum or refuge from those countries, they wouldn’t be proudly flying those countries’ flags. When have you seen a North Korean defector waving the North Korean flag? Or a Cuban escapee waving the Cuban flag? When have you seen someone escaping oppression, socialism, etc. waving the flag and proudly representing the country they just “escaped” from?
These aren’t refugees, or asylum seekers, or immigrants. They are invaders.
Knowing all of this, don’t you think this will make Americans like me and you want a border wall at the Southern border? The reason the Great Wall of China was initially built was because during the Qin Dynasty, the First Emperor of Qin wanted to prevent invasion from northern nations. Sure, later it was used to protect Silk Road trade, but it was initially built to guard China from invasion.
Likewise, we see something similar. We have nations down south who don’t want to invade the country themselves, waging war against us, but nations who allow their people to illegally migrate to another country en masse.
It may not be any one particular nation that is the invading force of this caravan, but it is those nations’ people who are forcefully making their way here, all-the-while still representing their countries of origin through the proud waving of their flags.
The idea of a foreign entity invading the U.S. is downright terrifying and should put everyone on edge. This is what we are facing right now, so we have to come up with viable solutions. Allowing this caravan entry into the country means other caravans popping up and doing the same, eventually leading to the utter invasion and transformation of the U.S. away from its founding principles (which are already under attack by the Left anyway) and into a country similar to the rest of the continent.
The blessing in disguise that this caravan brings is that people might become more warm to the idea of a border wall.
When Trump initially came up with the idea of building a “big, beautiful wall” in our border with Mexico, many people loved it, but many people also hated it. The media, unsurprisingly, was adamantly against it, as were the Democrats.
But given how toxic the Left has shown themselves to truly be, I imagine there will be more and more people choosing to vote Republican this November. As time goes on, the media has been a little less adamant to claim victory of a “blue wave”, saying that it might be a close race. Even DNC Chairman Tom Perez recently said that “we (Democrats) always knew that this election was going to be close.”
At the start of the year, everyone was making the same claims that they were making in 2016: Trump is going to lose, Democrats are going to win in the biggest landslide ever, blah, blah, blah.
And now, he says it’s going to be close?
This sort of thing tends to be the case as the race grows near. People become slightly less confident and think it will be closer than previously anticipated. But this sort of thing, coming after a year of touting a blue wave that would sweep the Republicans and crush Trump, is indicative that the Democrats legitimately fear there will be no such blue wave.
Why? Because their attitude and actions have been so toxic that they’re driving people away. Not that they would ever admit to that, of course, but the results will show. The “#WalkAway” movement started for a reason and I believe it has far more traction than the Left believes it has.
This caravan can only help Republicans and Trump come November. It’s indicative of the failed immigration policies of the Democrats that have slowly, but surely been eating away at our border safety, leading millions to enter the country illegally. Now, we have large groups of people forcefully making their way to the U.S., not in the hopes of assimilating, being part of our capitalistic economic system, but in the hopes of exploiting it at best and changing it at worst.
Trump, for his part, is rightly putting the blame on the Democrats. It’s THEIR immigration policy and lack of enforcing immigration laws that has led to this invasion.
Now, the ironic thing is that a recent NBC/WSJ poll, which has Trump at a record high of 47% approval rating (record high for the poll itself), says that Democrats are ahead when it comes to the issue of immigration (up by 4 points on Repubs). Meaning that likely voters trust Democrats a little more on immigration than they do the GOP.
Well, while I find that awfully suspicious given Trump’s high approval in the poll itself and given that immigration is what Trump won on, I doubt such an advantage is actually there. It might’ve been back during the summer when the Left were screaming at Trump over keeping kids in cages (which is what Obama was doing, but no one pay attention to that) and separating kids from their parents (which Clinton started, but again, no one pay attention to that). That’s when Democrats might’ve taken the lead in immigration, but definitely not now.
And with this caravan, there’s no way people aren’t at the very least disturbed by it enough to want to build a wall.
I hate the idea of a caravan of illegals making their way to the U.S. I imagine many people feel the same way. But while Trump might be able to stop this caravan, and God-willing he will, what’s to stop another caravan in the future from popping up?
Trump won’t be President for life like his Chinese counter-part. Eventually, someone else will be President. Hopefully a Republican, but who’s to say that they would be able, or even willing, to stop a future caravan?
A wall, on the other hand, is imposing and permanent (unless you tear it down, of course, but you get my point). A wall would/will be more able to stop invaders. Of course, it will also have to be accompanied by actual enforcement of our immigration laws, but a wall is at least a start.
This caravan, quite frankly, terrifies me. I am not in a border state, so I will not be directly affected by this, but the number of people coming in here illegally, who will definitely be voting Democrat because Democrats don’t care about voting laws (or any laws that don’t benefit them), as well as the fact that, if not stopped, this will definitely encourage more and more caravans popping up makes me afraid for our future.
Because while today it may be anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000, more caravans means more and bigger numbers to the point where we are either completely overrun or our economy is so garbage that people won’t want to come anymore because it’d be no different from Central America. Frankly, it could easily become both.
At this point, I don’t see voting Republican this November as voting for a political party that I more agree and identify with. I see it as the safeguarding of our country both now and in the future. The Democrats have proven they have no desire to protect America, particularly as it is now. They wish to transform it no matter what, even if that means being overrun by illegals.
I’m not gonna be voting Republican just to punish the Democrats for their recent behavior. I’m doing it because they seem to be the only ones that actually give a damn about protecting this country.
This is no longer about certain policies working or not. It’s about the survival of our country as we know it. It’s about defending our country from foreign invaders.
Everyone says this is the most important election of our lifetimes, or at least one of them. They’re certainly not wrong, because this means we either protect our nation from future invasions and the evils of the Left, or we surrender to future invasions and the evils of the Left.
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. It’s easy and, like I said, completely free. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I don’t know if I have written an article where I don’t decry that people who tend to vote Democrat also tend to be ignorant of facts and/or reality. It is not meant to serve as an insult to Democrat voters, but rather, a warning that their vote is helping evil people who wish to take away their freedoms.
Knowing this, I cannot say I am surprised when Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips could not find a single Beto supporter in Texas A&M who could name even one of his accomplishments.
The video (below) begins with Cabot asking some students who they would vote for if the election were held the following day. Unsurprisingly, many said they would vote for Beto for different reasons. One of them said they would vote for Beto because she is a woman, and another said because she believes Democrats help poor people.
Yeah, they help poor people stay poor, but whatever.
In any case, Cabot then followed up by asking them if there were any accomplishments that would make Beto “a good person for office”. As you know by the title of this article, you know that not one of them could point to anything. At best, the only thing they could point to is him being popular; getting his name out there. If that’s the case, then I would imagine Kim Kardashian is just as qualified as Beto O’Rourke to be in the United States Senate based on that alone.
The woman who pointed towards his popularity could not really come up with an actual career accomplishment for Beto, saying she wasn’t as educated as she would like to be.
Another student tried to point to the fact that he’s “been working really hard with everything he’s been doing around Texas.” To Beto’s credit, he has been going around Texas a lot, so he is getting out there unlike a certain failed Presidential candidate who took her election for granted. But “working really hard” is not a career accomplishment. If that’s the argument in Beto’s favor, the same case can be made for Ted Cruz, but accentuated because he’s actually in the Senate and has been doing this for a few years now.
But the same student that tried to argue that his hard work is something to look towards also says that Beto “doesn’t really have the platform to make a huge difference right now.”
Then why vote for him at all? Typically, a political candidate has a platform to make an immediate difference. Whether they stick to it or not is a different issue, but not even having a platform to “make a huge difference right now” should come off as somewhat of a red flag for this student.
Another student actually offered a little bit more (at least in terms of word count, not in terms of substance), saying that Beto might not have the experience, but he would get it as a Senator. Basically, he was trying to compare being a U.S. Senator to getting an entry level job.
Now, as a young man also looking for a job (that pays), I get what he’s saying. I often come across entry level positions that require a college degree (which I’m working towards) and a few years of experience in the field. You have to have a job to get experience but you also need experience to get a job. Such is the paradoxical problem for a young man in America. But Cabot himself argues that there’s a difference between an entry level job and being a Senator.
But the student kept trying to argue that “you can be as informed about a position without actually doing it.” Which is not true at all. Without being a Senator, you cannot fully understand what it is to be a Senator. And while you can learn an awful lot and be as informed about it as you can be, actually doing it is different from imagining yourself doing it, even if you’re well-informed.
For example, I could learn as much as I possibly could about the job my mom has. But that doesn’t mean I would be able to do it just as well as her or even properly at first.
So considering this is a Senate position we’re talking about, what would the reason be for going for someone who has no experience or much knowledge about the job, and apparently no platform or accomplishments to brag about, when you can go for someone who is experienced, knows a lot about the job, and has accomplishments to his name?
Speaking just in terms of this alone, the best choice would be Ted Cruz. If you’re a hardcore Democrat voter, of course, none of that would matter. To them, any Democrat, regardless of experience or accomplishments, is better than any Republican. Which is something that I can understand. To me, just about any Republican is better than a Democrat. So I can understand such a mindset.
But if you’re talking about accomplishments, experience, etc. aside from everything else, then Ted Cruz should still be considered the best candidate even by Democrat standards. Of course, putting everything else in there such as policy, beliefs, etc., then Ted Cruz is a million times better than O’Rourke, who would wind up as yet another Pelosi puppet at best.
In any case, after a little bit of banter of the students’ reasons for voting for Beto, the video ends with some conservative college students saying they will vote for Ted Cruz and offering pretty good reasons.
That portion begins with one of the students hilariously answering Cabot’s question of naming Beto’s accomplishments with: “Unless you count going to jail for DWI as an accomplishment, then no.”
I honestly laughed out loud with that one. Even PolitiFact, the left-leaning “fact-checking” site confirms the fact that O’Rourke was arrested for DWI in 1998, and was even arrested for burglary in 1995, but the case was “disposed of in February 1996”, according to PolitiFact.
Regardless, the first person that told Cabot that he would vote for Ted Cruz said that he had voted for him in the past, and he believes Cruz supports family, which according to the student, is “a very important Texas value”. In a perfect world, that would be a very important world value, not just restricted to Texas, but we don’t live in a perfect world, do we?
The second student to say he would vote for Cruz said that Cruz stands for freedom, such as the freedom to own guns, and that he’s good on immigration, all of which are exceedingly true.
So at least the video ends in a good note. But returning to the Beto supporters, that further shows people that Democrat voters don’t tend to stay informed about issues and candidates. The problem arises in the fact that there is also a slew of misinformation out there, particularly in the fake news media. Now, if the Orange County millennials are anything to go by, young people don’t tend to watch the news. So they don’t tend to think that the hoax that is Russian collusion is a key issue for them, or whatever Trump says about horseface (in my opinion, he was being too nice to Stormy. The other end of the horse is really more accurate of a description).
This whole thing highlights the need to stay informed about people, issues, and what people think about certain issues. To the Left, illegal immigration is good and gun-ownership is bad; MS-13 are angels while NRA members are terrorists. Sometimes, in certain areas, they try to hide who they are (i.e. McCaskill trying to hide how anti-gun she really is). So the need to stay informed about people is very important.
Individually, those students should at the very least look up things Beto has done in the past (apart from his criminal background, at least) and get themselves informed about him. It’s really the least they could do for themselves. And God-willing, doing extensive research will lead them to change their mind about Beto and decide to go for someone who is not going to destroy Texas as much as he can.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. While these Texas A&M students might not know much about Beto, you can rest assured that I will tell you all you need to know about this newsletter. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox for easy viewing. And the best part is that it comes completely free of charge. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is safe to say that our current political climate has gone well-beyond toxic and entered the realm of violence. Not only are you not allowed to think a certain way, you will be punished for thinking a certain way. Anyone who utters a conservative thought, who dons a MAGA hat, who openly supports this country or their local GOP candidate is considered less than human, and thus, expendable.
Though we have not quite gotten to the point where we are outright killing each other Civil War-style, that certainly seems to be the direction we’re headed. Tensions aren’t being de-escalated, and it certainly doesn’t help that nut-jobs like Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters and many in the MSM, particularly CNN, encourage this violent behavior against the Right.
But here’s the thing: these Leftists, as unhinged, dangerous and evil as they might be, are also huge cowards.
Allow me to elaborate. One particular trend I’ve noticed as of late is that whenever there is violent confrontation between Leftists and Right-wingers, the Left had some sort of advantage. Be it strength in numbers, strength in weaponry, or simply physical strength against someone who is of the fairer sex.
Breitbart News has documented 603 acts of violence and/or harassment that the media has approved of thus far. But you can add another 2 to that list, since in Nevada, a Leftist operative of a Soros-funded organization physically assaulted the female Republican campaign manager for GOP gubernatorial nominee Adam Laxalt. According to the Daily Wire, this is the nut-job’s second time being arrested for assaulting a Republican woman.
The second would be a small Antifa group in Portland, OR, where I used to live, harassing and verbally accosting a 9/11 widow until a group of counter-protesters, some of whom were larger men than the “man” who accosted the widow, chased the small group away from the woman.
Looking over the rap sheet of acts of violence/harassment, we can see things like: Sen. Susan Collins being sent a letter filled with ricin to her home, a Republican candidate being sucker-punched in a Minnesota restaurant, a FEMALE Republican State Representative being assaulted in Minnesota, a female conservative reporter being threatened with rape by an elderly Leftist man (and feminists defending said man, even though we’re supposed to believe all women), CNN anchor Don Lemon defending the mob that chased Ted Cruz and his family out of a restaurant by saying the mob had the Constitutional right to do that (spoiler alert: they didn’t), and perhaps more prominently, a Leftist protester kicking a pro-life woman.
There are also other things, such as a Leftist attacking a Republican House candidate in Northern California with a switchblade, a Trump supporter being attacked by a punk rocker in one of the rocker’s own shows (and being kept from fighting back by the other attendees), and who could forget the shooting at a Virginia baseball practice that targeted Republicans and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital?
What many of these incidents have in common is that the Leftist attackers have the confidence to attack or harass someone. But when an equal or greater force meets these Leftists, they deflate like a badly baked soufflé. I’m sure you’ve seen some videos of Leftist thugs getting beaten up by counter-protesters. When things get a little too violent and the Left thinks they can take someone on, if they don’t have some sort of advantage, they completely fall apart and retreat.
Because at that point it’s either that or getting their butts kicked.
But the entire thing exposes these two things about the Left: 1) they are evil, otherwise they would never dare harass or attack someone for a petty reason like a political disagreement and 2) they are cowardly, only daring to take action when they feel they have some sort of advantage, be it a weapon, physical dominance over a woman, or strength in numbers.
Whenever we talk about gun control, the Left will always utter taunts like “why do you need a weapon? Are you just not manly enough?” which is especially rich considering that they heavily scrutinize any man that even remotely appears to do something manly, and considering the fact that many on the Left could easily be considered beta males.
But they utter such a taunt because they want to make gun-owners appear to be cowardly, hiding behind a gun. And yet, it is strictly the Left who uses guns to do a shooting. You will never see a conservative shooting up an establishment with the intention of killing Democrats. That’s something only the Left has been documented to do. Why? Because of the previously-listed reasons: they are evil and cowardly.
The Virginia baseball field shooter was reportedly shouting about healthcare. Instead of trying to win elections, he opted to simply exterminate the Republicans in Congress, or at least as many as he could. That is not only evil, but also massively cowardly.
As are the rest of Antifa and anyone who wants to pretend to fight for something worthwhile on the Left (of which there is nothing). They accost Right-wingers whenever they feel they have some sort of advantage. But at the first sign of equal or greater opposition, they become emasculated and retreat.
Now, if this were a war, that’d be understandable. Only someone with a death-wish would willingly throw themselves into a disadvantage. You attack when you feel you have some sort of advantage, for the most part. However, this is not war (yet) and these are not soldiers fighting for their country.
These are children who failed to grow up, at least mentally and emotionally, and pretend to fight fascism all-the-while employing the exact same tactics the Fascist black-shirts and the Nazi brown-shirts employed to gain power. These are not soldiers fighting the Taliban. These are children fighting law-abiding citizens who disagree with them. People who are simply trying to enjoy a meal, or walk down the street, or express their beliefs.
These are people that think they are expressing their beliefs by acting in the way they do. People who simultaneously deny others their right to free speech if that speech is different from their own.
Earlier, I mentioned Don Lemon saying these mobsters have a Constitutional right to do what they did to Ted Cruz and his family. To quote, here’s what he said: “… But that doesn’t mean that people don’t get to object. That’s your right as an American to object. It’s covered in the First Amendment… In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it in a restaurant, that you can’t do it on a football field. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it on a cable news – you can do it wherever you want.”
Aside from being a notorious racist, Don Lemon is also a massive moron. You can protest in public areas, but not in private property. You need the permission of the owner to protest in private property. But beyond arguing against such a stupid argument, let me take a step back here. THESE ARE NOT PROTESTERS! THESE ARE RAGE-FILLED MOBS CHASING PEOPLE OUT OF RESTAURANTS!
A peaceful protester will not accost someone. That goes against the definition of a peaceful protest. To call these people anything other than a mob is asinine. And I find it fascinating that Don Lemon thinks these people have the right to do this, but Ted Cruz and his family don’t have the right to enjoy a meal in a restaurant.
But anyway, that’s mostly just a tangent that I really wanted to cover here just to expose Don Lemon as the piece of crap that he is. A racist, a hypocrite and a massive moron.
Returning to the overall point, it becomes clear to anyone with eyes and a functioning brain that these “protesters” are nothing but a mob. That these people are evil and cowardly, only daring to get violent if they feel they have some sort of advantage.
Again, these are not soldiers. These are very privileged children who have yet to face reality. If there ever is another Civil War in this country, it will be a quick one.
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. No hidden fees. What you get it a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
You know you have royally messed up if even the mainstream media won’t defend you and your claims. This is Elizabeth Warren now that she has willingly exposed herself as a fraud, believing that evidence contrary to her claims somehow proved her right.
Here are some headlines Monday morning when the DNA test had just been released, not a lot of people had finished reading it, and the media could have created the narrative in people’s minds that Trump was a racist and was proven wrong by the brilliant and brave Native American woman:
And my personal favorite:
Now, let’s contrast these to some of the headlines that came out after it was made obvious that the DNA test showed a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th Native American ancestry and the analyst didn’t even use Native American DNA in his analysis:
And there are plenty others like these. Keep in mind that it was the Daily Beast who most openly and utterly confirmed Warren’s Native American claims in their previous headline.
Again, you have to royally screw something up to get the media to turn on you if you are a prominent member of the Democrat Party and a figurehead of the “resistance” against Trump.
But all of this still makes sense. While it is still surprising to see the media turn on Warren in this way, which is something we never see with pretty much any other Democrat (except Bill Clinton, and you know you really messed up if you join him in the list of Democrats the media doesn’t want to talk about), it makes sense that Warren’s DNA results draw ire from people.
For decades, she had told the story that one of her ancestors was Cherokee and that her mother was Native American and had to elope with Warren’s father because her grandparents were bigots. All of it has since blown up in what can be considered a nuclear bomb on Warren.
What Warren did in releasing the test results was stupid, but not surprising. She wanted to own Trump, thought the media would back her no matter what, and thoroughly believed the lies she was propagating. She so desperately wanted to score points against Trump, particularly as part of an October Surprise against Republicans this election season, that she forsook reason, logic and facts.
The test very clearly disproved her claims that she was Native American, possibly Cherokee. While she does have some Native blood in her, so does nearly everyone else in the CONTINENT! And that’s ignoring the fact that the DNA test didn’t even use Native American DNA, but a mix of Peruvian, Mexican and Colombian, further suggesting that Warren has even less Native American DNA than the test might show.
But none of these things mattered. It didn’t matter that the test showed she has little more Native American ancestry than your average white person at best and far less than your average white person at worst. It didn’t matter that the person in charge of analyzing her DNA used samples that were not Native American to determine whether she was Native American. She wanted to score some points on Trump, was so blinded by that desire, that she inadvertently scored points against herself.
What she did was the equivalent of throwing a basketball the full length of the court, hoping to score a miracle shot, but somehow managing to get the ball to bounce all the way back and score in her own net.
With the sloppy evidence she had of her ancestry: the “high cheekbones”, the “my great, great, great x150 grandmother was Native American”, the “my parents had to elope because my grandparents were bigots”, and whatever else she had, it was a Hail Mary of a shot to try and prove Native American ancestry. And she failed… miserably… to the point even the MSM, who usually go along with the abandoning of logic, facts and reasoning, didn’t want to try and salvage or defend this train-wreck.
We will have to wait and see if this train-wreck properly derails Elizabeth Warren’s chances at a 2020 run. Despite her not having indicated that she would run, in fact, going as far as to suggest she wouldn’t, I didn’t believe her for one second. But after this week, she might actually be forced to seriously consider not running.
Her having claimed being a Native American for decades would hurt her more than you might think. The Harvard Crimson celebrated Warren as a Native American. Fordham Law Review celebrated Warren as being Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color”, which really tells you something about Harvard Law School, doesn’t it?
She identified as Native American and schools like Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School accepted her as Native American. She BENEFITED from calling herself Native American, given that Harvard is considered a federal contractor, with employment practices falling under Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In other words, she benefited from affirmative action AS A WHITE PERSON!
This is not something that would sit well with minorities. Claiming to be a minority, particularly to benefit from doing so, is unethical. While the Left usually would not see much problem with this, given that they’ve been backing Warren’s claims for some time now, it would definitely be seen as a problem in any presidential race, and perhaps any future Senate race, now that she has been basically proven to be a liar.
While she is running in 2018, I don’t know if this would lead to her being beaten in a blue state like Massachusetts. But it does raise concerns for her here, at least to some extent. I don’t imagine she would even get her Party’s nomination in 2020 after this, given how much of a failure Clinton was. While Warren may not be a criminal (who knows?), part of the reason Clinton was defeated was because she was such a flawed candidate. This revelation could now mark Warren as a flawed candidate (despite the fact that she’s a socialist, that’s somehow not enough to make her flawed).
Again, you know you messed up big-time if even the media won’t cover for you. That’s almost a death sentence for Democrats.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
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 delivered right into your inbox. All you have to do is put your email address in the allotted box on the right, click the “subscribe” button and you’re done. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will 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...