Leftists blame just about everything on climate change. AOC blames climate change (and white people) for the death of her grandfather, who was killed when Hurricane Maria struck the Caribbean. They blame every single hurricane and storm on climate change, as though these things are completely and utterly unheard of before we had the combustion engine. And every time there is a wildfire in California, the Left blames climate change.
So it comes as no surprise that former California Governor Jerry Brown blames climate change, and more specifically, climate change deniers in Trump and fellow Republicans, for the wildfires in the state.
“California’s burning while the deniers make a joke out of the standards that protect us all,” Brown told the House Oversight Committee last Tuesday. “The blood is on your soul here and I hope you wake up. Because this is not politics, this is life, this is morality… This is real.”
Whatever grandstanding the communist former governor might attempt, it doesn’t erase the fact that he is completely wrong about what he’s saying. First of all, there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea that climate change causes forest fires. As I wrote in an article titled: “There Is No Link Between Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events,” 31 leading climate scientists gathered in Hohenkammer, Germany in 2006 and “ultimately concluded that any trend of rising ‘climate damages’ were primarily due to increased population densities and economic activity in the path of storms and that it was… not possible to determine what portion of those damages can be attributed to greenhouse gases.”
Secondly, according to the Los Angeles Times, the current California Getty Fire sweeping through L.A. was reportedly caused by a tree branch that was blown into power lines by high winds. Hard to argue that it was climate change that caused any of that.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the REAL reason for these wildfires are California’s idiotic environmental policies that make it almost impossible and extremely expensive to cut down trees. California’s forests are overgrown. The density of the forests are twice what they were 150 years ago and 10 of the state’s 20 biggest and deadliest fires have all occurred in the last decade alone, according to Climate Depot.
“Green sentiment has beaten back the timber industry, which might have put life-saving access roads into wild areas. It has prevented controlled burns (for fear of disrupting animal habitats) and barred even minor brush-clearing programs,” reports Climate Depot.
What’s insanely ironic, however, is that even Jerry Brown himself seems to have understood this principle at one point, despite what lunacy he attempts to peddle. You see, on his final day as governor, Jerry Brown admitted to having quietly signed bills removing some impediments to “controlled burns” and also allotting $190 million a year to “improve forest health and fire prevention,” according to Climate Depot.
So even the commie governor understood, at least privately, that the biggest reason for these wildfires in California are the state’s asinine environmental laws that do more harm than help.
Going back to what Brown told the House Oversight Committee, he said that the deniers were making jokes about the “standards that protect us all.” Not only is he fundamentally wrong here, as, again, ten of the state’s twenty biggest and deadliest wildfires have occurred in the last decade, so they don’t protect anything, but he even has seemingly disagreed with the notion that such standards protect the people of California by his quiet actions as governor.
“The blood is on your soul here and I hope you wake up. Because this is not politics, this is life, this is morality… This is real.” Those are words that Brown needed to have told himself. He was governor of California from 2011 to 2019. It’s his own policies that have endangered California’s citizens and Gavin Newsom has only continued such atrocious policies.
If the blood of those killed by the wildfires is on anyone, it would be on Brown, Newsom, the environmentalist wacko lobby and the whole of the American Left. THEY are the ones implementing such disastrous environmental policies that handcuff those who would keep the forests and the people safe. PG&E wouldn’t have to create massive blackouts if the powerlines were buried into the ground instead of choosing the “environmentally-friendly” options.
The “green” policies that Commiefornia Democrats espouse only cause harm to the environment and to the people of the state. In order for the forests to survive, they need to be well-maintained, which often times means controlled burns and allowing the timber industry to cut down a good number of trees. It also means burying powerlines that could cause out-of-control wildfires. Homelessness has also been cited as being a cause for some wildfires, considering fires have started in homeless camps, so employing socialist economic policies is also a massive detriment to the environment and to the people of California (at least to those living outside the 1%).
It isn’t climate change that causes these wildfires. It’s the idiotic and counter-productive environmental policies employed by the Left that cause these wildfires. Not that it matters to these people. As long as there are wildfires, they can fool people into believing climate change is causing them and taking “action” against them (meaning giving everything you own to the State) is the only viable “solution” to this problem. The Left is more than happy to see more and more wildfires that get more and more deadly as time goes on because of the sort of brainwashing they can do with it. Despite the very clear fact that it’s their policies that are causing this, as long as the attention can be drawn elsewhere, they won’t have any problems and will only succeed in getting what they want.
California is every bit the failed state that Venezuela is, only held up by the fact that it’s part of the United States and that carries with it the benefits of not completely tanking. Many are already leaving the state because of the terrible conditions it is in. What’s unfortunate is that many who leave the state move into other ones and vote for the same type of people who would employ the very policies that caused them to move out in the first place.
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
If this seems like a familiar topic, that’s because it kind of is. Back in late September, I wrote an article detailing five polls that should scare the Democrats going into 2020. Today, we will be looking at ten polls, instead of five, that should do the same.
Without further ado, let us begin with:
Poll #1: only 36% of registered voters support a House attempt to impeach President Trump.
According to a recent USA Today/Suffolk poll, only 36% of respondents support the House attempting to impeach the President, with 22% saying Congress should continue the impeachment inquiry but not remove the President, 37% saying the House should end the impeachment probe and 4% are undecided. 46% also report being in favor of convicting President Trump if impeached in the House, with 47% being against.
While these numbers are not exactly great for Trump either, they are terrible for House Democrats seeking to impeach Trump, an effort they have been salivating at ever since Trump won the presidential election of 2016. When looking to impeach a president, the number one thing you need is public support, which is why Adam Schiff had been leaking carefully selected excerpts of the highly secretive testimonies from people supposedly testifying against Trump. If the Democrats are unable to successfully raise people’s desire to impeach Trump, they will only come out of this effort as absolute losers.
Poll #2: Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows Trump’s approval rating at 46%.
Without a doubt, that number is not exactly spectacular for Trump, given his history in this particular poll. However, that number is far from the lowest it’s ever been and not even the lowest it’s been since the impeachment stuff began. As it stands, comparatively speaking, his approval rating is the same as Obama’s was at the same time in his own presidency. This is important to note because, while Trump has usually done better than Obama in recent months, being tied with Obama, who handily won his own re-election, is not a good thing for Democrats looking to unseat Trump come next election.
Impeachment won’t work, so their best bet would be to beat Trump at the polls. However, this is an uphill battle for them. None of their current candidates stands much of a chance against Trump at this point. And while we are a little over a year away from the 2020 election, so a lot can happen in that time, it’s unlikely things will improve much at all for Democrat hopefuls.
Poll #3: Most Americans believe government is the problem, not the solution.
In his inaugural address in 1981, President Ronald Reagan said: “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” In a recent Rasmussen poll, 59% of Americans agree with that statement.
This is important simply because of who the Democrats are and what they believe. They believe in expansion of government, government-run programs, government-run everything. They believe in the Marxist ideology of communism, even if they wouldn’t outright admit it, and every proposal they give is in an effort to expand government power and influence over the American people, rather than diminish it.
Everything from Medicare-for-All, regardless of whose version it is (and it literally cannot be afforded by taxing the rich even 100% of everything they have), to the Green New Deal to every single proposal by the Democrats is an attempt at growing the size and scope of the government – a government which 59% of Americans agree is the PROBLEM, not the solution to people’s problems.
Poll #4: Most likely voters believe most politicians want to expand the government more than the American people want.
In a similar, but older poll as the last one, we find 66% of likely U.S. voters believing that most politicians want the government to have more power and money than it already has. This one should really be common sense to most people: most politicians in the government are in it to enrich and empower themselves, not help other people. Regardless of what campaign promise or contribution any given politician might make, most will go into government not to actually help their communities and their voters but help themselves and their donors.
Government power often entices people and leaves them lusting after it. It’s for this reason that so many politicians break their promises so easily, quickly and often. The promises they made do not serve their selfish interests past the point of election. Making their communities wealthier and better does not help them retain power because that means more people are financially independent from the government. As long as people are dependent on the government, such politicians will remain in power for life.
Poll #5: Most voters believe government is too powerful.
In another Rasmussen poll that is similar in nature to the last two, we find that 58% of likely voters say that there is too much government power and too little individual freedom. We should note that this poll comes from December of 2018, so it is rather old, but considering how little changed the government’s size has been, I doubt current sentiment is all too different from these numbers.
But this is another poll that goes against what the Democrats wish. Again, the Democrats are all about increasing government power. But most voters believe it already is too powerful as it is and there should be more individual freedom than there is.
Poll #6: Most voters fear a government that is too powerful.
Quickly moving on to the next poll, we again find something similar to the last one. A Rasmussen poll from July of last year finds that 62% of likely voters believe that a government that is too powerful is more dangerous that one that is not powerful enough.
These last two polls really coincide with one another pretty well, I’d say. It is understood by most voters that a government that is too powerful is a bigger threat to people than a government that is not powerful enough. It is also widely believed by nearly as many voters that the government we currently have is too powerful – too big – for our own good. And the Democrats only seek to further expand the power of the government, not reduce it. Granted, many Republicans also seek the same thing, with few actually being able to do much at all to reduce its size and power (Trump’s trying with deregulation, but he can only do so much on his own), but the Democrats don’t even pretend they wish to reduce the size of the government.
Even when talking about our deficit and our national debt, they just try and place the blame on Trump rather than come up with an actual solution to the problem because they don’t care about this problem at all.
Poll #7: Most voters don’t trust the government with their tax money and want a smaller government.
Once again, we find a poll that tells us something similar to the last two. According to Rasmussen, 57% of likely voters want “a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active one with more services and higher taxes.”
This one comes from May of this year, so it’s not too old, but not that recent either. This also came around the time Democrat candidates were trying to outbid each other to try and see who could come up with the most expensive and government-power-increasing new system that would be marketed as being completely paid for by the infamous rich people of America. But as we are noticing, the trend is that more government expansion is not what most voters want.
Poll #8: Most Americans believe they are taxed more than their fair share.
A Rasmussen poll from March of 2019 finds that 57% of Americans “believe they are paying more than their fair share of taxes.” Now, obviously, this comes after the 2017 GOP tax cuts were passed and implemented, so people are not paying close to as much as they used to, but people believe they are paying more than they honestly should.
I believe that this comes in some part to Pelosi and Democrats trying to convince people that the Republican tax cuts were actually only tax cuts for the wealthy and most people’s taxes went up, but I don’t think that is much of a contributor here. Even if it was, it’s not like Democrats are promising to lower people’s taxes. We literally have Bernie Sanders trying to convince people that while he will be raising taxes on both the wealthy and middle-class Americans, that it would be okay because they would be “offset” elsewhere (which is a complete and utter lie).
Democrats never promise to lower taxes and that is an action only Republicans have done, even if some people naively and ignorantly believe their taxes were actually raised, not lowered (though they should be noticing the impact of the tax cuts from their paychecks being higher).
Poll #9: Most voters not convinced taxing the wealthy into oblivion will benefit the economy.
Rasmussen asked surveyors in February of 2019 what they thought about raising taxes on the rich and the impact it would have on the economy. 39% believe it would help the economy, 39% say it will hurt the economy and 14% say it won’t have any impact on the economy.
While this poll is not quite so devastating to Democrats as the last few have been, it does present a problem for them. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and virtually every other Democrat has proposed highly expensive and outright unaffordable new programs for a variety of things, which they argue will be fully or at least mostly paid for by the rich. However, just as many people are convinced that doing so would hurt the economy as there are who think that it would help it. Again, this is not something the Democrats would want to see.
Finally, we reach poll #10: 89% are proud to be an American, with 70% believing in putting America first.
There are few things that Democrats hate more than the United States of America, regardless of what they might try and argue. They heavily fault America and consider it to be a demon-spawn of a nation, ignoring the overall good it has done for its own people (in large part thanks to its own people) and for the world. They attack it for having allowed for slavery to be legal, despite the fact that virtually every other nation in the world has allowed for slavery and many countries in the Middle East still allow it to this day.
They fault it for its perceived discrimination but will ignore China arresting and often executing Christians, Muslims, Jews and political dissenters. They consider it a threat to the global climate despite the fact that Asia contains the world’s biggest polluters in China and India. So to find so many people being proud to be an American and so many people wishing to prioritize the health, stability and prosperity of our nation ahead of others goes against the globalist Left’s ideals.
These numbers, by the way, don’t come from Rasmussen either. They come from a Grinnell College poll that has Trump’s overall approval rating at 40% (43% with likely voters). It’s not exactly a right-wing poll.
This same poll also said that 87% of people are tired of the political circus we are all witnessing, 33% consider themselves to be politically incorrect, 41% say they are gun enthusiasts, 38% say they consider themselves feminists, 19% say they are socialists, 54% say they consider themselves to be “progressive” and 62% are afraid for the future (reasons not specified). It also says that 63% believe they are moving closer to their personal financial hopes and that 55% believe the economy is better now than it was at the beginning of 2017, when Trump took office.
All of these polls, to varying degrees, should really make Democrats afraid. Impeachment is nowhere near as popular as they would want it to be in order for it to be successful; Trump’s job as POTUS is mostly good; most Americans believe the government is the problem, not the solution; that most politicians want to expand the size and scope of the government; most voters believe the government is presently too powerful; that such a powerful government is a threat to its people and to individual liberty; most voters are distrustful of the way politicians spend tax payers’ money; that people pay more than their fair share of taxes; that taxing the wealthy to poverty will not be helpful to the economy (this is taking the 39% of those who say it will hurt the economy and the 14% who say it wouldn’t do anything to it); and most people are proud to be an American and wish for our leaders to prioritize the country and put America first, as Trump often says.
None of these things are good news for Democrats as they go into 2020. I hope and believe that these numbers will hurt the Democrats completely, as well as this phony and illegitimate impeachment effort they are hellbent on crusading on.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Over the weekend, the U.S. Army’s Delta Force, 75th Ranger Regiment and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment carried out an operation in Syria to assassinate the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and were very successful, getting the terrorist s.o.b. to detonate a suicide vest inside a dead-end tunnel, blowing himself up, alongside three of his children because that’s how much of a psychopath the guy was.
And while this is undoubtedly a great moment for the United States and for President Donald Trump, Leftists and people in the media were quick to either refuse praising Trump for this successful raid (odd, considering they praised Obama to the hills as though he personally went to bin Laden’s hideout and shot him in the head after delivering a one-liner like in the movies) or even try to downplay the killing of Baghdadi as not being such a big deal.
Leftist “journalists” like John Harwood tried to downplay the killing of Baghdadi by saying: “… in the American psyche, Baghdadi was to bin Laden as an ant is to an elephant.” Bin Laden was the leader of al-Qaeda and was known largely because of 9/11, the biggest terror attack in American soil. Just because Baghdadi never accomplished something quite to that scale (thank God), it doesn’t mean he was basically a nobody. The guy had killed thousands in the Middle East, ruining people’s lives by raping women, making children orphans and killed, captured and beheaded hundreds if not thousands of people.
But this insensitive and narcissistic idiot wasn’t alone in trying to downplay the death of Baghdadi. The Washington Post released an article with the title: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48.”
Calling Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” is like calling Hitler an “austere Darwinian fanatic” or Stalin an “austere fan of food-sharing methods.” The guy was the literal leader of ISIS, a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of people, and he gets the treatment of a Harvard scholar by the WaPo. Unbelievable.
Then there was soon-to-be-arrested former Obama National Security director James Clapper downplaying the killing of Baghdadi on CNN’s “State of the Union”:
“What is going to be interesting is the extent to which this negatively affects ISIS or does it galvanize ISIS, the remnants of ISIS, which still survive as an ideology and has franchises in other places besides Syria. ISIS is more than just Baghdadi, as important as he was. 14,000 to 18,000 fighters yet remaining and the franchise are branches in other places – notably, Afghanistan where of course we still have forces. ISIS did participate in losing leadership. So they decentralized and groomed people to assume the role. Now, I don’t know that they have anybody [who] would have the symbolic importance of Baghdadi but I don’t think we can say at this point that we can stop worrying about ISIS.”
Of course we can’t because the ideology of ISIS stems from radical Islam. As long as that is around, ISIS and other terrorist groups like it will remain. But killing Baghdadi, the founding leader of ISIS, is a pretty major deal (by the way, in doing research on Baghdadi, I came upon his Wikipedia page and they have him as the former leader of “ISIL”, which is the name given to ISIS by those who do not recognize Israel’s sovereignty, and they say that he was “in office” as leader of ISIS as though he was a civilized politician and not the piece of human excrement that he actually was).
And even though ISIS is still going to be around after Baghdadi, that doesn’t mean it will likely resurface as a powerful group like it once was (under a certain someone’s presidency). Newsweek, who also downplayed Baghdadi’s assassination, reported that while the group may have a new leader in a man called Abdullah Qardash, they also report that they are on their last legs, as while Qardash may have been hand-picked by Baghdadi to lead ISIS upon Baghdadi’s death, that decision was not made by the group as a whole and it may lead to infighting.
And even under the best case scenario for ISIS and the Left, where there is zero infighting and every ISIS officer accepts Qardash and follows him, ISIS has been considered to be reaching its end back in February of 2019, when CBS News reported that the group had lost a lot of ground, being reduced to a little more than a quarter of a square mile in Syria, and that “hundreds” of ISIS fighters and over a thousand civilian tagalongs (meaning families, servants and slaves) had fled the group. ISIS had also been driven out of Iraq in 2017.
So while ISIS is still around and is still a threat to people living near them (and let’s not forget there are also radical Islamic terrorists that are in other places like Europe who perform terrorists acts in the name of ISIS as a form of allegiance to them), they have been on the absolute cusp of defeat for a long time now, with zero signs for any sort of resurgence.
But Clapper wasn’t the only one who still thinks ISIS is still a major threat. Obama’s Joint Chiefs Vice-Chair James Winnefeld expressed concern over the way Baghdadi’s remains were treated, worrying that it would drive more Islamic violence and arguing that: “If you look back at the bin Laden raid, we treated his body with respect that is due under Islam.”
And oh boy do I have a lot to say to this.
First of all, Baghdadi’s remains should’ve been picked up and flushed down the nearest toilet, sort of giving him a burial at sea (not certain exactly how his body was treated). That is the LEAST the newest resident of Hell deserves.
Second of all, does this moron realize that further Islamic violence came after bin Laden’s death anyway? These terrorists couldn’t care less how “respectfully” bin Laden’s body was treated. They found out that American forces killed him and wanted vengeance for it. Similarly, the remaining ISIS terrorists and supporters will also want vengeance for it.
You see, what you have to realize is that these people are not civilized human beings. They are savage dogs who see us being killed by them as justice and us killing them as injustice. They believe they are prophetically-destined to rule the world through Sharia and any who interfere or dissent will be forced to either submit or perish. Their ideology has not evolved in the least since its inception in the 7th century, as evidenced by how much of the Muslim world still works (gays being set on fire or thrown off buildings, blacks being sold in open slave markets, women being sold off for sexual slavery, children being traded for livestock, etc.).
While not every single Muslim is a terrorist, groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hamas and others exist because of their radical interpretation of an already pretty radical ideology. Much of the Muslim world, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., live as though they are still in the 7th century, albeit with major technological advancements at their disposal.
The barbaric violence of the past is still commonplace in the Middle East because of this.
Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying violence is absent everywhere else apart from the Middle East and I’m not saying that Islam is the only source of violence. Chicago is a pretty violent place, as are many places in California and most Democrat-run cities. Violence is also present in Leftist Europe (a lot due to Muslim terrorists, but obviously, not all of it is due to them).
What I am saying is that there will always be violence with regards to Islam because violence is ENGRAINED in Islam. Wives and children being hit by their husbands/fathers is fairly commonplace and disobedience to the paternal figure in the family is grounds for violence up to even death in some cases.
Far from the “religion of peace”, Islam is little more than a death cult. Yes, there are moderates in it, as in any other religion, but most moderates tend to not entirely grasp the concepts and doctrines of Islam. Similar to how moderate “Christians” might defend gay marriage or even come out as gay themselves, they do not fully understand the teachings of Christ and merely interpret them to how they wish it would be. They use eisegesis, meaning putting into the Word of God what is not there, rather than exegesis, meaning taking what is in the Word of God out for learning and teaching. They put into the Word of God the words of Man, which utterly distorts the teaching of the Bible.
And while one might wish to defend Islam to some extent and point out that we call these radical Islamic terrorists “radical”, we do have to remember that the founder of Islam, the “prophet” Muhammad, would raid, capture and kill people with his armies of followers, ordering the murder of dissenters and criticizers of Islam (kind of like how it is now) and telling his soldiers that it was okay to rape the women that they captured, even if they were married, to be sold or traded, or even were prepubescent.
The Quran stands in stark contrast to the Jewish Scriptures and the Bible’s New Testament books. Muhammad taught that it was okay to use violence against dissenters and that his mission was to drive out from the Arabian Peninsula all Jews and Christians.
Violence from ISIS sympathizers and fighters will continue, not because they will grow in strength and numbers (at least, they won’t under Trump), but because that’s simply the nature of the ideology they espouse. They believe they are destined to set up a global caliphate and that violence and aggression will be the best course of action for accomplishing that.
It doesn’t matter if we treat Baghdadi’s body with respect like we did bin Laden or if we put his remains into a cannon and launch it into what remains of ISIS territory – these people will always hate us and wish to cause us harm.
But returning to the overall story of Trump’s accomplishment over Baghdadi and ISIS, I love the fact that these fools would go to such lengths to either try and downplay the significance of this or would outright defend Baghdadi and give him any sort of reverence like the Washington Post did. It goes to show just whose side these people are on and is a great campaign topic for Donald Trump. Of course, there are a lot more examples than the ones I shared with you, but I think you get the idea about who these people are and with whom they choose to side.
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
A recent report commissioned by the Pentagon gives us a dire warning about our future: the U.S. military and the whole world could face a grim reality due to climate change because of “blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war.”
From what they write, it seems as though climate change is a serious threat, not only to the defense of the nation, but to the entire population of the world. We must act now! Or, we could stay the course because this is far from the first such warning given to us by the “intelligence” community.
As always, people see these apocalyptic warnings and are left scared and without hope (all in an effort to elect Democrats who will do zero about it because they literally can’t do anything about it) and the doomsday clock gets reset once again.
Honestly, I find it rather interesting that the Pentagon would give us a 20-year warning for this. Don’t they know that we only have 11 years left? That’s what AOC said, at least, and we all know how much of an intellectual she is.
Oh, wait, I’m forgetting another important thing: we already died due to the net neutrality repeal! That’s right, I forgot.
But wait, it says here that back in February of 2004, the Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that climate change would destroy the world over the next 20 years and that Britain would be “plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020,” according to The Guardian. So then, this warning must be good news, surely! We used to only have 20 years back in 2004, 15 years ago and Britain would be like Siberia by 2020, which is only a few months away.
Success! We have pushed back climate change! Wait, why aren’t people celebrating? Especially when back in May of 1976, the CIA warned us that climate change would bring about destruction to the whole world and that clearly hasn’t happened? We have pushed back climate change by over 50 years!
It’s the same song and dance year after year after year and it doesn’t look like many people are learning the most important lesson: make your apocalyptic predictions far enough away in time that no one will remember them and next to no one will be alive to remember it.
Allow me to return to an article I wrote just a month ago. Back in that article, I noted forty-one different times climate “experts” or at least prominent Leftists made predictions about what would happen and when the climate apocalypse would begin.
In that article, I noted fake news media articles declaring: “Dire Famine Forecast by ‘75” from 1967, “Foe Of Pollution Sees Lack Of Time,” from 1969 that also, interestingly, had a 20 year forecast, a new ice age being forecasted by the beginning of the 21st century, dire warnings of water and food rationings in the U.S. by 1974 and 1980 respectively, and overall a slew of predictions that were 100% false or erroneous.
And it looks like the Pentagon is on the same boat. Can’t exactly say I’m surprised, given how politically-influenced all levels of government have become.
Climate change is not a threat to anyone, least of all the United States Military. Whatever dire predictions people make today are some of the exact same ones they have been making FOR NEARLY A CENTURY!
If it’s not global cooling, it’s acid rain. If it’s not acid rain, it’s global warming. If it’s not global warming, it’s climate change. Every single year, we find ourselves in the middle of a new doomsday clock.
Again, AOC already warned about the world only having 12 years to deal with climate change, but now, the Pentagon says we have 20. And they said we only had 20 years back in 2004. And Al Gore said we only had 10 years in 2006. And every single person in on this farce has warned about the world only having a set amount of time to take care of it and it’s all crap.
We didn’t die of global cooling or an ice age in the 1970s, we didn’t die of acid rain in the ‘80s, we didn’t die of global warming at the turn of the century, we didn’t die of climate change in 2016, we’re not going to die in about 15 months like Prince Charles believes, we’re not going to die in 11 years like AOC believes and we’re not going to die in 20 years like the Pentagon believes.
Regardless of any future warnings that may arise, regardless of how far into the future they are, they are not going to come true because of how utterly wrong they are about what they preach. I’ve already explained how we’ve had other notable warming periods in history, back when the Roman Empire was a thing and back when knights were a thing. Neither could possibly be explained away in the same manner that this warming period is being explained. Man-made climate change is nothing but a hoax because man cannot influence the planet in the way that these people claim.
Certainly, we aren’t causing the sort of damage they claim we are. And even regarding the pollution that does happen, most of it comes from Asia, specifically China. China is one of the biggest polluters, if not the outright biggest polluter, in the entire world. And yet, cowards like the climate puppet Greta Thunberg and other “concerned environmentalists” don’t even try and wag their fingers at the communist state.
If it was so dire that we stop such pollution for the sake of the planet, wouldn’t it be important to tackle the biggest polluters, even if they are the communist regime of China? Since they aren’t doing that, what reason do I have to trust them regarding anything about the climate?
So no, I’m not going to buy into the Pentagon’s idea that we will die in 20 years. These people have zero credibility and it baffles me that people would actually take them seriously.
Ironically, the same people that tell us to “trust” the intelligence community are the same ones that have lambasted it for decades and tore into them when they told us there were WMDs in Iraq when there weren’t any to be found.
There is no actual intelligence in any of the people that run the “intelligence” community.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
If you were to go to any politician’s tweets, you would often find a lot of people expressing opposing views to what the tweets say or even to what the politician generally believes, disregarding what the tweet actually says. This is often the case for President Trump’s personal Twitter account, Nancy Pelosi, and even for many news sites that share political news and generally fake news.
However, the media finds this to mean heavy opposition to something or someone in general. So when writing their news, they say things along the lines of “social media erupted about person x’s position” or “person y received some major fire on social media for this particular action.”
That is often the mistake the media makes, in believing the views expressed on social media are a reflection of the country as a whole. However, that is a mistake for a number of reasons.
Reason number 1, and perhaps most importantly, only 22% of Americans use Twitter. That leaves another 78% of Americans without being able to express their own opinions on something and the media takes what they do see as a general reflection of the country’s views.
Reason number 2, Pew Research Center found that, while 39% of the users that were studied (out of a total of 2,400) tweeted at least one time about national politics, the vast majority of political Twitter, or 97%, came from just 10% of users. Meaning that the number of people who are often engaged in politics on the social media site is exceedingly small.
What’s more, the vast majority of that 10% are heavy critics of Trump, make up 80% of all tweets from US adults (meaning that these anti-Trumpers would tweet far more often than those who do not necessarily actively hate Trump) and generated 72% of the tweets talking about politics. By contrast, those who strongly approve of Trump made up only 11% of tweets from US adults and 25% of tweets about politics.
This tells me a few things. First, the Never Trumpers have no lives. Second, some shadow banning or outright banning is likely in play here. And finally, Trump supporters have better things to do with their lives than to stay engaged 24/7 being offended and triggered by just about everything they see. I know that last point is similar to the first, but it’s worth pointing out.
What’s also rather interesting are the numbers regarding age demographics. Boomers, those aged 65 and older, while they only produced 10% of all US adult tweets, contributed 33% to the political tweets. Those aged 50 and older produced 29% of all tweets, but contributed 73% of political ones. Finally, those aged 18-29 produced 20% of all tweets, but a surprisingly low 4% of all political tweets.
There could be a number of reasons for why these numbers are what they are. For one, millennials might simply not make up too huge of a population on Twitter. Yes, while they are seemingly double the number of boomers (in the study, at least), Twitter is far from the most popular social media site for younger generations. Among 18-24 year olds, 44% said they use Twitter, compared to 73% who say they use Snapchat, 75% who say they use Instagram, 90% who say they use YouTube (though not certain that one counts as social media) and 76% say they use Facebook.
For the most part, it seems that millennials are more interested in taking pictures of things or themselves and sharing them on social media sites that are built specifically for those things, like Snapchat and Instagram. Or, they generally also intend to have social lives and use Facebook to chat and hang out with friends.
But still, it is rather remarkable that out of the 20% of millennials who made up all US tweets (in the study), only 4% were political tweets.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of political tweets are from a very small number of people. And yet, the media acts as though it’s a reflection of the rest of the country and as though they matter.
For example, The Independent recently had an article about Chris Pratt titled: “Chris Pratt called sexist after mocking wife’s cooking: ‘Proud of my darling for trying to cook tonight.’” An article where Pratt lightly mocked his wife’s cooking for having burnt a bagel to a crisp.
And while this is indeed not about politics, it does reflect what the media often does with Twitter engagement. What do I mean? Well, while the article makes it sound like a lot of people on social media decried Pratt as sexist, only 6 people actually did that or something of that caliber, none of whom have anywhere close to a thousand followers. They were just random accounts with a few hundred followers at best and far from people anyone would really pay attention to.
Had it been a fellow actor or a semi-prominent journalist, that may have been a different story. But 6 people no one knows say the guy is sexist and The Independent writes a whole article about it? Even the tweets that criticized Pratt had no more than THREE LIKES MAX! My average political tweet tends to have a bigger response than that AND I’M EVERY BIT THE SOCIAL MEDIA NOBODY THESE PEOPLE ARE!
So the next time some fake news media site says that “Twitter blew up today when such and such said this”, ignore it because it’s far from an accurate descriptor of how the American people feel. And while I do sometimes talk about the reaction someone got on Twitter, like when Ben Rhodes trashed the NBA for kowtowing to China, it’s to point out a surprising moment when even (some) Leftists would not defend such actions.
But the next time the media tries to convince you that Trump or someone else they hate said or did something they think is dumb and adds that “Twitter blew up” about it, remember that it does not reflect the overall sentiment of Americans.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Continuing down the list of things people find strangely racist, we find Jack-O’-Lanterns that are painted black, because 2019 is stupid and we continue to stray farther from God.
A New York law firm recently came under fire due to placing black Jack-O’-Lanterns in their front porch in Nyack, New York, which some people decried was “racist” and “insensitive.”
Mary Marzolla, a partner at Feerick, Nugent, MacCartney Law Offices, said that “we understand that someone complained about [the black Jack-O’-Lanterns] and so once we got word of that, we immediately took them down.” Marzolla also explains that the pumpkins were personalized with the names of each of the firm’s partners and were not intended to offend anyone. “We represent people of all colors and faiths, and we would never do anything to exclude anyone from any community.”
A local NAACP director, Wilbur Aldridge, says that the display shows an “extreme lack of sensitivity.”
I’m not exactly surprised that an NAACP director would complain about something like this. These people find just about everything offensive, except for the systemic genocide of black people in the womb.
But regardless, the law firm subsequently queried why it was that they came under fire for displaying the pumpkins when they bought them from Bed Bath & Beyond, putting the spotlight on that company.
As a result of that, Bed Bath & Beyond apologized for having sold the “racist” Jack-O’-Lanterns and pulled them from store shelves, adding that any offense was unintentional.
Director Wilbur Aldridge also decided to attack Bed Bath & Beyond, decrying that it was “equally as offensive” that the retail store would sell the product as the firm was for displaying it.
Now, I don’t ever tend to put up decorations outside my home during Halloween, only during Christmas and even then, only the wreath on my front door, but nothing more than that. But if I wanted to put a black Jack-O’-Lantern on my front porch, why would anyone take offense to it? The lanterns that the firm used were not all too different from other ones. The lanterns had faces painted on them that gave them a white mouth, white teeth, white eyes and a white nose. What’s so offensive about that? How is this equal to blackface?
In my opinion, this is just bullying the law firm. Of course they meant no offense! NO ONE INTENDS OFFENSE WHEN PUTTING UP DECORATIONS! It’d be like saying a display of the birth of Jesus was racist because the characters have brown skin and Muslims could be offended (although there are other “arguments” people make about taking down such decorations). It’s utterly ridiculous and the only person here that is in any way offensive is the NAACP director.
The fact that he can only see things through the lens of skin color tells me race is all that is in his mind. And the fact that he would push the law firm and the retail giant to pull the “racist” lanterns off their porch and shelves respectively tells me the guy is just a bully. How exactly is this necessary? Who does it offend? Why does it offend? Because it’s black? PLENTY OF THINGS ARE BLACK TOO!
The very computer monitor I’m typing on is black. Is that racist? My phone is black. Does that make it racist and make me racist for having it? Or is it only racist if I put a face on it? If I put a face on my phone, does that make me racist? Is a black cat racist? Because it’s both black and has a face on it.
So then why would A BLACK JACK-O’-LANTERN BE CONSIDERED RACIST?!
That’s really a rhetorical question. We know precisely why it’s considered racist. Not because it fundamentally is racist but because people want to flex some social muscle and bully others into submission.
The NAACP is, unsurprisingly, full of Leftists. Leftists, in case one can’t tell, are massive bullies. I don’t think I have to make much of a case as to why they are. My entire website highlights time after time after time and case after case after case of Leftists being bullies in some way or another. Whether it’s bullying Trump, bullying celebrities, bullying regular people, bullying libraries, bullying businesses, bullying the law-abiding citizens, just about their entire ethos surrounds the tactic of bullying.
It’s a means to an end and it’s disgusting. And it’s totally insincere too. Let’s not forget that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam GOT CAUGHT WEARING BLACK FACE IN A COLLEGE PICTURE and is still governor of Virginia. Let’s not forget that Canadian PM Justin Trudeau got caught in black face THREE DIFFERENT TIMES and he recently won re-election as PM.
What this tells us is that it’s okay to be racist, to wear blackface, to offend people, so long as you are 1) a Democrat/liberal/Leftist and 2) apologize, even if you do not mean it in the least.
No one can sincerely argue that the law firm or the retail giant intended any offense when putting up or selling the black-O’-lanterns. But still, they catch fire for it. And yet, Northam and Trudeau have both worn blackface, which I would argue is FAR more offensive than a black Jack-O’-Lantern, and they do not get punished whatsoever, in fact, only get rewarded for it, as is the case for Trudeau.
Racism means nothing if consequences aren’t equally shared. If the law firm and Bed Bath & Beyond are punished for the black lanterns, why aren’t actual people who intentionally wore blackface? If it’s okay for the racist liberals to do it, it’s okay for EVERYONE to do it (and let’s not even get into the whole “lynching” fiasco, which is another example of Leftist hypocrisy, given even they have used the word which they claim is offensive, but actually is not).
Every time someone is accused of racism, while at one time was a heavy charge, it means absolutely nothing anymore. When someone is accused of being a Nazi, while that was a serious charge against someone in the past, it means absolutely nothing any more (unless they actually are a Nazi, of course).
These words have lost all meaning due to overuse. Of course, for businesses who risk profits, they will bend the knee to these Leftist bullies and do whatever they want so as to avoid unnecessary conflict. But for me, when someone is accused of being a racist, that means absolutely nothing to me (again, unless they actually were being racist).
Trump has been called a racist since the beginning of his campaign and there isn’t a single time when he has proven or even slightly suggested that he was racist. The charge itself holds no value anymore, which is why some Democrat candidates have insisted on saying something “stronger” than just calling people racist.
The fact that that is even being discussed is proof that what I say is true. They wouldn’t need to come up with a stronger charge than “racist” if the charge of “racism” was in any way as effective as it once was.
But to reiterate my original point, the black Jack-O’-Lanterns are NOT ACTUALLY RACIST! Certainly, not to anyone who has any sense of reason or logic or even a remotely thick skin.
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
Back in late November of last year, I wrote an article discussing the harrowing situation a family, or more specifically, a father and his young son were in because of the son’s monster of a mother, wherein she forced him to dress and act like a girl around him and in the school he would attend.
As a reminder, court documents said that James Younger, the young boy in question who is only 7 years of age at this point, would only dress as a girl when he is with his mother and was enrolled into school under the name of “Luna”. He would have to use the girls’ restroom and he would be addressed as “Luna” by his teachers, principal, librarian, and most other authoritative figures in his life… except his father, who is trying to save the young boy.
But unfortunately, evil reigns supreme in this case, as a Texas jury has decided that Jeffrey Younger, the father of James, will not be the Sole Managing Conservator over his “two twin boys” (Yes, there are two, but it appears James is the only one that is being forced to be transgender by his mother, though it’s uncertain that his twin brother will not be forced as well).
James’ mother, Dr. Anne Georgulas, according to LifeSiteNews, has been granted authority to “transition” James from a boy to a girl, meaning chemical castration when he turns 8, putting him on puberty blockers and eventually, put him on a hormone treatment in his mid-teens.
LifeSiteNews also says that “the jury’s decision likely means that Mr. Younger will be required to ‘affirm’ James as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections, and will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism.”
Jeffrey Younger recently was a guest on The Luke Macias Show and shared with the host:
“I want you to imagine having electronic communication with your son on FaceTime, and imagine that your ex-wife has dressed him as a drag queen to talk to you. He has false eyelashes and makeup. His hair has got glitter in it. He’s wearing a dress. Now imagine how you would feel seeing what I believe is actual sexual abuse – I believe this is not just emotional abuse but is the very, most fundamental form of sexual abuse, tampering with the sexual identity of a vulnerable boy… [James] wears a dress at her (Georgulas’) home; he has a new made-up name, Luna – it appears in the court filings. He goes to school; the teachers call him ‘Luna’. He uses the girl’s bathroom at school. All of his authority figures – his mother, his teacher, the librarian at school, the police officer at school, the principal at school – tell him he’s a girl. I’m the only authority figure in his life that tells him the truth; that he’s actually a boy.”
Furthermore, Jeffrey notes that, in his opinion, he has witnessed his then-wife “was only giving [James] love and affection when he was acting like a girl,” adding that she used to lock the young boy in his room and tell him that monsters only eat boys.
He continued: “Every. Single. Day. You have to see your son sexually abused, and you have to maintain your calm, because the courts are not going to be fair to you. And the only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition. That’s what it’s like. They’re asking me to affirm a delusion.”
It is utterly despicable what this mother is doing to her own son. I believe Jeffrey’s account regarding withholding affection unless James acts like a girl and locking him in his room and telling him monsters only eat boys, but even if they aren’t true, the situation as a whole is very much true and is horrifying.
The mother is a vindictive (I really want to use a bad word here, that’s how mad I am, but you can use your imagination) and is sexually and emotionally abusing her OWN SON. And now, because of course it’s this way, a jury, the people who decide the boy’s future, have sided with his mom likely because of “political correctness.”
If I were Jeffrey, I would go to my ex-wife’s house, barge in, take my kids and go to a non-extradition country, safe from that monster’s predatorial hands.
I would honestly not give one single flipping crap (I really wish I could say something stronger) about what the legal consequences of this are. I would much rather obey God’s Law over Man’s law if Man’s law contradicts with God’s.
What happened in that courtroom was an abortion of justice. Even by the Left’s own standards, this should be considered extremely evil because it’s FORCING A CHILD TO BE A GENDER HE DOESN’T WANT TO BE!
Court documents show that he very aggressively does not want to act or dress like a girl when he is with his father. He KNOWS he’s a boy, but is being FORCED to act like a girl when with his “mom” (I wouldn’t even call her that, as calling her that is an insult to all mothers) or when in school.
One of the Left’s arguments in favor of transgenderism is “letting people choose who or what they want to be.” Dumb as it is to deny biological and scientific FACT, adults can do whatever they damn well please, so if one wishes to be a different gender from what they are, then fine. They are definitely wrong to do so and if they go through the transition procedure, will permanently alter their bodies and will likely come to regret it, but it’s their decision to make.
But here? The only decision being made is by the “mother” and by the courts, siding with the “mother”. The young boy doesn’t have a choice in the matter. His mother wants him to be a girl, so he has to be a girl. And not one Leftist will care because “woke”, even though if the roles were reversed, and it was the boy who wanted to be a girl and the mother who didn’t want that, the Left would accuse her of bigotry and transphobia and say it’s “the kid’s choice”.
Apparently, the kid only has a choice when it’s a choice the Left agrees with. Why am I not even surprised at this in the least?
It’s pure evil what is happening and the judge preceding over the case should lose her job and her law degree. This is the very perversion of justice, the state allowing a woman to sexually, emotionally, biologically and physically abuse her child just because she’s on the “right side of history.”
Injustice is never on “the right side of history.” History, but most especially the Lord God, who is the creator of the universe, will utterly condemn this action by the woman and by the court.
The Mayo Clinic says that possible side-effects of cross-sex hormone therapy include: blood clots in a deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) or in a lung (pulmonary embolism), high triglycerides which are a type of fat in the blood, gallstones, weight gain, elevated liver function tests, decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, infertility, hyperkalemia or high potassium, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hyperprolactinemia, where a noncancerous tumor in the brain causes the pituitary gland to overproduce the hormone prolactin and have it rush through the veins.
In other words, there are a LOT of health hazards when it comes to the hormone treatment of transgenders itself, let alone the chemical castration and things like gender transition surgery.
The young boy will be forced to live a life, perhaps a short one, full of chemical and biological, let alone social, misery all because his mother FORCED HIM TO BE A TRANSGENDER GIRL!
Now, I don’t usually do this, but I highly recommend visiting the website: savejames.com. In this site, you can find more information regarding the case, including multiple court documents detailing the situation, such as documents showing Georgulas accusing Jeffrey of domestic violence (thankfully, he was acquitted) and everything else regarding the actual case. They also allow for people to donate to the site to help Jeffrey keep his son, though it’s not likely that this story will have a happy ending. If you wish to donate, that is your decision. I will not ask that you do, as I am not certain it would help any at this point, but do as you wish.
As far as Jeffrey and James go, I pray to the Lord that He will watch over them and keep them safe. From what I understand, Jeffrey is religious and the site says that he has volunteered to serve on the board of a private Christian school that his step-daughters attended, so it’s likely that he already is a Christian, which is good. Regarding James, it’s unclear. With limited contact with his father, he will likely have limited contact with his father’s faith as well and more contact with his devilish “mother”.
The entire situation is horrible, but I pray that James will be able to go through this as safely as one possibly can when being hurled into permanent harm’s way, and I pray that things do get better for James, his father and his twin brother, who might be subjected to the same things as James in the future (if he isn’t already).
One can only hope that the young boy is as safe as possible, the father will be as strong as possible and will eventually be justified and given custody of the boys and that the Lord will appear strongly in everyone’s hearts, especially Georgulas’, who absolutely needs Him the most. Don’t misunderstand, they all need Him badly and need His comfort and love badly, but it’s her evil heart that needs the most purging and cleansing with the Holy Spirit.
I hate what this woman is doing and even slightly hate her for doing it, but if there ever was a case of demons plaguing someone, this is it (you particularly think this if you read the “James’ Story” section of the aforementioned website that says “Ms. Georgulas [believes] she is called by God to do these terrible things,” which really only makes me think Satan is behind this, using his demons on her). This woman is being utterly plagued by demons and only the power of the Lord can save her.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will end by saying this one more time: I pray that everything will turn out well for everyone in question, with everyone finding comfort, love and security in the Lord.
“And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’”
Is there a more useless politician than Mitt Romney? Not only is he a massive snake in the Republican Party, but he also apparently is so sensitive to criticism and maintaining his image that he had a burner account for years, with tweets all either defending something he was doing, praising himself, or attacking Trump (which he does personally anyway).
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) recently revealed that he had a “lurker” Twitter account to The Atlantic McKay Coppins, though he did not disclose what the name of the account actually was. However, he gave them enough information about the account for them to discover what it was. His now-not-so-secret burner account is called Pierre Delecto, with the handle “@qaws9876”. Not sure what that’s supposed to mean, but when asked about it, Romney confirmed it by saying “C’est moi”, which is French for “it’s me.”
Of course, scorn and ridicule are some of what Romney received as a result. The guy is too worried about his own image, wherein he faults Donald Trump for tweeting too much and engaging in pointless Twitter debates with people, and yet does the exact same thing with a burner account.
Now, the reason I call it a “burner” account is because this is sometimes used when it comes to other celebrities, namely sports figures, when they use accounts other than their official ones to defend themselves or to attack someone else. People like former Philadelphia 76ers General Manager Bryan Colangelo and Brooklyn Nets superstar forward Kevin Durant have all been found to have used burner accounts for various reasons, though often for some of the same reasons as Romney does.
However, there is a difference between a sports star using a burner account and a 72-YEAR-OLD SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR USING A BURNER ACCOUNT. Dumb as it may have been, Durant’s burner accounts (yes, plural) aren’t really a big deal because the guy is considerably younger and more naïve. But what excuse does Romney have?
The guy is less than a year younger than Trump and yet has the mental capacity of a child. And I honestly mean that. You have to be fundamentally dumb to side with the people and party who destroyed you in 2012 just because you have a personal vendetta against the Republican president.
You have to be stupid to think you can honestly primary Donald Trump and actually expect to win. Anthony Scaramucci has said that he believes Trump “will not be the [Republican] nominee come November.” This guy also has a personal vendetta against Trump for having fired him (and likely other reasons) but he’s an idiot for actually expecting this.
Similarly, with reports saying Romney was asking other Republicans about primarying Trump, he falls into a similar category of stupidity as a result.
But it’s not just stupidity; it’s hypocrisy. Many people have attacked Trump for being on Twitter so much and for engaging in pointless and needless arguments with other people, whether they be politicians or even celebrities who hate his guts. Romney is one of them, but he’s apparently been doing this LONG BEFORE Trump even showed up.
“Pierre Delecto”’s Twitter account was created in July of 2011, only one month after Romney announced he would be running for president.
Among Pierre’s tweets, at least recently, we find tweets replying to supposed conservative journalist Jennifer Rubin saying Romney is spineless because he won’t confront Trump by replying: “Jennifer, you need to take a breath. Maybe you can then acknowledge the people who agree with you in large measure even if not in every measure.”
In other words, he’s telling her: “Hey, don’t be mean to me because we are on the same side on this issue.” Only he’s too scared to use his actual account to say that because he has an image of a morally and intellectually superior political prince who finds such confrontation to be beneath someone of his stature.
He’s a fool and he doesn’t even know it.
And people certainly aren’t defending him for this either. Even former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said having a fake Twitter account for this reason is “the work of kids, cowards, couch potatoes and perverts like Carlos Danger.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Romney is like a 14-year-old girl. He won’t directly fight with someone outright, but will talk trash about them in secret or behind their backs, trying to ruin the reputations of the people they hate. Teenage girls can be vindictive like that (not that I would personally know, being a guy) and that’s what Romney is acting like. He has the mind of a child.
He doesn’t have the spine to directly stand up to anyone or do much to defend himself, so he sets up fake Twitter accounts to do it in total obscurity. Unfortunately, he made Pierre’s account private, but I wish I could’ve seen what he said when Harry Reid said he put his dog on top of his car during a road-trip or when he was accused of not caring about an employee’s wife dying of cancer or when the whole “binders full of women” fiasco occurred.
The guy is a total coward and is the face of the Republican Never Trump movement. I’d say it’s a great fit.
“Terrors frighten him on every side, and chase him at his heels.”
The idea of impeaching Donald Trump surfaced before he even took office. Before the Russian collusion narrative took center-stage, all the Left could talk about was impeaching Donald Trump. And even the Russian collusion narrative was all in the efforts to get rid of Trump in the first place. Impeaching Donald Trump has been the chief goal of the Democrats ever since then and their taking the House of Representatives was essentially a promise to everyone, but particularly to their extremist base, that they would get around to impeaching Donald Trump, getting his tax returns and just about everything bad they could do to him in the name of “justice”.
The 116th Congress convened on January 3rd, 2019, with the Democrats as the majority in the House. It’s been a little under 300 days and they still haven’t gotten Trump’s tax returns and they are only now beginning to even talk about a serious impeachment inquiry (though Pelosi is refusing to bring it to a floor vote, so it’s not actually very likely to happen). Despite their best efforts, they haven’t been able to even try to begin impeachment proceedings and everything they’re doing at this very moment is more akin to a shadow trial than an official one.
But however much the Democrats in Washington might be salivating at the idea of impeaching Donald Trump, it’s not even close to being an important issue according to a recent Emerson poll.
Now, it should be mentioned that the Emerson poll is only regarding Iowa, but considering this is a rustbelt state, you can probably guess the sentiment for most other states are not too dissimilar.
According to the poll, only 6% of voters say that impeachment is the most important issue.
“The most important issue for voters in Iowa in deciding for whom to vote for president is the economy at 33%, followed by healthcare at 19% and social issues at 10%. Impeachment ranked 7 out of 9 at 6%, ahead of education at 5% and foreign policy at 3%. Among Democrats, the most important issue is health care at 25%, followed by the economy at 17% and the environment at 14%. The majority of Republicans (55%) identify the economy as the most important issue, followed by immigration at 14%. Independents are split between the economy (27%) and healthcare (24%),” says the poll.
In other words, what is most important to voters are issues that THEY CARE ABOUT AND WOULD MOST DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THEM, not getting rid of the President of the United States in a hate-filled coup d’état. The most important issues are things that most people are generally concerned with: the economy, healthcare, social issues, the environment, immigration, etc. They care about things that will affect them the most, not a sham of an impeachment.
But these numbers aren’t the only bad numbers for Democrats. While impeachment is not even remotely close to an important issue in the eyes of Iowa voters, the truth is that the issue is not much more important for Democrats in the state.
According to pollster Spencer Kimball, “The Democrats have some work to do in Iowa convincing voters that impeachment is a top priority of Congress; 67% of Democrats in Iowa support impeaching the president, but only 10% identify it as the most important issue in deciding their vote for president.”
67% is usually a good number to find in polls that one agrees with, but not in this case, at least for Democrats. If a full 33% DISAGREE WITH IMPEACHMENT, that is far too many dissenters in the party.
Keep in mind that the Left is thoroughly convinced that the vast majority of Americans support their attempts at impeaching the President. With heavily-skewed and biased polls like the ones from Fox News that only parrot that belief, one can’t exactly blame them for thinking this way, at least too much.
But 33% of Democrats being AGAINST impeachment in Iowa, that only shows the sort of sentiment that is likely fairly similar in the rest of the country. And even among Democrats who agree with impeachment, only 10% see it as a top issue, which is what the Democrats are running on.
The 2020 presidential election, for the Democrats, will largely only be about getting rid of Donald Trump because they hate him. Yes, the candidates will bring up all these other issues when it suits them or when they have to talk about them during debates or townhalls, but the chief end of their campaigns will not be to listen to the voters and take care of issues; it will be to get rid of Trump. Even during the debates, they couldn’t avoid talking about getting rid of Trump.
For Democrats in Washington, impeaching Trump is at the top of their priorities. But for the vast majority of people around the country, it isn’t, even among registered Democrats who support impeachment.
Again, only 10% of these Democrats say it’s at the top of their priorities. This is an indication that 90% of registered Democrats (at least in Iowa) would want the focus to be elsewhere and an indication that going full-throttle on this issue only serves to appease them, not their voters and certainly not the American people.
But what’s more, Donald Trump actually leads the two frontrunners on the Democrat Party:
“In hypothetical head to head matchups, Trump has a slight advantage over Warren and Biden: 51% to 49%, while Sanders carries a 2 point advantage over Trump with 51% to 49%; all three match-ups are within the polls margin of error. (n=888, +/-3.2%)”
While it’s all within the margin of error, meaning that it really could be the other way around for all match-ups or the leads could be bigger, the fact that it’s even that close at all should be a warning sign for Democrats. Not only are their impeachment efforts not seen as priority by their voters, but Trump is nowhere near as unpopular as they would want him to be in order to go through impeachment proceedings.
Of course, other polls will still show Trump being heavily opposed (Emerson poll didn’t show the sample of voters down party lines, so it’s unknown how many surveyed were Democrat vs. Republican or Independent), but as we have seen in the past, there isn’t much reason to trust such polls, knowing the tactics of oversampling Democrats and passing that off as general voter sentiment.
What I’m trying to get across is the fact that impeachment is simply not a winning issue for the Democrats. Even if they eventually manage to impeach Trump, it would go to the Senate, where it would most likely be acquitted, which the President would most definitely say is a sign of vindication and exoneration (considering he did nothing wrong to be impeached in the first place, I say it would be exoneration). If this poll is any indication for other states, particularly purple states, that puts Democrats in such states in peril.
As I have stated in many previous articles, voting one way or the other will draw them ire and the potential to lose their seats, and therefore, cause the Democrats to lose the House in 2020. Despite Nancy’s statement that it didn’t matter if they did lose the House, I don’t actually believe her for a number of reasons, as I detailed in my article discussing it.
The Democrats, in pushing for impeachment, are in a lose-lose situation. That is exacerbated by the fact that they don’t recognize they are in such a situation in the first place. They have convinced themselves that just about everyone in the country supports them and agrees with them. They believe they are seen as incapable of doing wrong, so they won’t let go of this impeachment stuff.
And it will most likely cost them everything.
“You felt secure in your wickedness and said, ‘No one sees me,’ Your wisdom and your knowledge, they have deluded you; For you have said in your heart, ‘I am, and there is no one beside me.’”
There are good ways and bad ways to organize protests. Good ways to organize protests are protests like Rosa Parks refusing to sit at the back of the bus, or staging protests at the steps of Capitol Hill or other places, so long as they remain non-violent.
Bad ways to organize protests are shutting down busy streets and/or public transportation to keep commuters from getting to work and forcing them to “listen” to their “important” message regarding climate change.
The latter is what the idiotic climate change group “Extinction Rebellion” has decided as of late.
As if the embarrassing “Shut Down DC” event wasn’t enough, the brainwashed loons have held other, relatively similar protests, shutting down streets and even shutting down London Tube subway stations.
According to the BBC: “Extinction Rebellion activists climbed on to trains at Stratford, Canning Town and Shadwell in Thursday’s rush hour. Eight protesters have been arrested, British Transport Police (BTP) said. The Jubilee Line and Docklands Light Railway were temporarily suspended. Extinction Rebellion later said it would ‘take stock’ of the reaction to the latest action for future protests. Spokesman Howard Rees said: ‘Was it the right thing to do? I am not sure. I think we will have to have a period of reflection. It is too early to say.’”
No, forcing people to miss work and listen to your insane rhetoric is not the right thing to do. Whether or not one buys into the insanity that is the climate change cult, no one wants to be disturbed from being able to get to work and pay their bills, feed their families, etc.
At the London Tube situation, commuters yanked the protesters off of the railcars, with some attempting to hit the protesters too. Obviously, hitting the protesters is wrong and they shouldn’t do that, but the protesters shouldn’t be disrupting entire systems just to spout their nonsense.
What’s more, it is extremely ironic that they would be willing to shut down public transportation when public transportation is one of the things they want more people to use.
Not that I expect these people to have the mental capacity to recognize the irony and uselessness of their actions.
But the worst part about the entire thing is that they do themselves no favors with gaining public support when they are ACTIVELY ANNOYING THE PUBLIC!
It’d be like a politician trying to garner support by insulting his or her supporters. How likely is such a tactic to work?
Even the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, condemned the protesters, releasing an official statement that reads:
“I strongly condemn the Extinction Rebellion protestors who have targeted the London Underground and DLR this morning. This illegal action is extremely dangerous, counterproductive and is causing unacceptable disruption to Londoners who use public transport to get to work. It is also an unfair burden on our already overstretched police officers. I urge demonstrators to protest peacefully and within the boundaries of the law.”
Arguably, a way to help police officers from being overstretched would be keeping them from arresting people who “offend” others on Facebook, but that’s an argument for another time.
When the very Leftist Muslim mayor of London is wagging his finger at these people, you know how little support they have. But again, it shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone. You don’t do yourself any favors by acting in this manner, by actively annoying and disrupting people’s lives in this way.
Politically, I don’t want them to stop because it only hurts their cause, but humanely, I want them to stop because who knows how badly these people need to get to where they need to go?
Maybe someone in that crowd of disrupted Londoners had to get to an important job interview and could very well have missed it as a result. Maybe someone had a medical emergency and needed to get to a hospital or clinic quickly. Maybe someone is working a minimum wage job and time missed would mean a smaller paycheck to afford their rent or food or bills, etc.
In disrupting people like this, it only serves to get people turned off from the issue they are trying to raise. And while the issue in question is insanely idiotic, some people buy into it, clearly. But no one would be willing to support these guys if they only prove to be a nuisance to the general population.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to help Extinction Rebellion in the least. I would love for them to continue to be seen as a nuisance and for their efforts to utterly backfire on them, as they have been so far.
However, looking at it from a human standpoint, disrupting the lives of busy and employed people (yes, I am heavily implying that Extinction Rebellion protesters don’t have jobs, given they have the time to do this sort of thing) is not helpful to anyone.
Again, you just don’t know how necessary it is for someone to get to where they need to go and time is of the essence. To stage such protests, regardless of intention, is entirely counterproductive both for the protesters and for the commuters they are halting.
But I highly doubt these people will simply stop as a result of this. At the end of the day, they are narcissists who believe and expect that others support them and their cause and agree with them entirely. They stage such protests because they expect to be lauded as heroes by the people and the media for bringing attention to the “issue” of climate change.
At the end of the day, however, they are nothing more than the crazy people who shout: “The end is near! The end is near!” After all, that’s what Extinction Rebellion is all about: insisting that the world is ending because of climate change.
They believe just about everyone agrees with them and might even join in on their activities, but being the narcissists that they are, forget that other people have jobs to get to and things to do.
Again, there most likely were people among those commuters who overall agreed with the message being sent out, but heavily disagreed with the means by which to send out the message. In this manner, they only hurt the very people who support their ideology. And those that don’t only get even more pissed at them for disrupting their lives in such a way for such a ridiculous reason.
Like I have said before, climate change alarmism is nothing more than a cult. They live and die by their ideology of climate hysteria and have recently seemingly selected their “savior” in Greta Thunberg (who might fall out of favor when they find another, younger kid to abuse for their insane ideology). No amount of scientific fact or evidence will convince them that they are wrong. They are emotionally and spiritually invested in this, leading them to make irrational arguments and do irrational things such as halting entire public transport systems just to lecture people about the environmental benefits of using public transport.
They are wrong about everything they believe and can easily be proven such, but that will never deter them. They have been successfully brainwashed to do the political Left’s bidding.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
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...