I’m almost tempted to make a bingo card of Leftist men who have recently been exposed for sexually assaulting at least one woman. Seriously, firing after firing, allegation after allegation, ousting after ousting, the Left seems to be getting demolished as time goes on.
The most recent Leftist to have been exposed as a sexual assaulter is Matt Lauer, who has been fired from NBC for credible allegations of sexual assault made against him.
An article written on PageSix.com is titled: “Matt Lauer allegedly sexually assaulted staffer during Olympics.”
“Matt Lauer allegedly sexually assaulted a female NBC staffer during the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014.”
And one of the more interesting parts of this story is the fact that Matt Lauer’s victim complained to NBC’s Human Resources department about the assault. Usually, women call out their attackers very publicly. In this intriguing new environment of women exposing sexual assaulters, this is the first time I’m hearing that the victim either hasn’t come forward publicly or refuses to do so.
Of course, I can understand her decision not to publicly do that. There’s personal repercussions that come with informing the public that you’ve been assaulted. But it’s interesting that in this particular case, the woman chose to remain anonymous, at least for the time being.
Regardless, the article continues: “An NBC insider said Lauer’s alleged victim complained to HR on Monday: ‘This happened so quickly. She didn’t go to the media, she made a complaint to NBC’s human resources, and her evidence was so compelling that Matt was fired on Tuesday night. The victim says she has evidence that this has also happened to other women, but so far we don’t have evidence of that.’”
Perhaps another rather interesting part of the article is that they write: “Lauer’s firing comes amid rumors that several news outlets were working on stories about his alleged sexual misconduct. Reporters for the New York Times had been investigating Lauer for several weeks, according to sources who had been contacted by the paper, CNN reported.”
What exactly does that tell you? It tells me that the reason Lauer was fired in the first place isn’t simply because of the evidence presented to NBC’s HR department by the victim. Another reason, seemingly, is that other news outlets were investigating him on his sexual misconduct and “working on stories” about it.
Does that mean that NBC would’ve kept Lauer on their staff if other news outlets hadn’t been working on stories about him? That if the woman had been the only person to even bring up what he did that NBC wouldn’t have fired him?
Maybe, or maybe not. Regardless, we move on to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack’s statement on Lauer’s firing: “On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. It represented, after serious review, a clear violation of our company’s standards. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment. While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over twenty years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident…”
Wait, wait, wait. “We were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident?” But the aforementioned NBC insider said “the victim says she has evidence that this has also happened to other women, but so far we don’t have evidence of that.”
If Andy Lack has reason to believe more women were assaulted by Lauer, doesn’t that mean he has sufficient evidence for such reasoning? There’s a bit of a contradiction, don’t ya think? Either they have enough evidence to at least have reason to believe Lauer assaulted more than just that initial woman or they DON’T have enough evidence that he assaulted more than just one woman.
Which is the truth? I don’t know. But I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more women that have been victimized by Lauer. In every high-profile sexual assault case we’ve seen in recent time, there’s always been more than just one woman. Even in the Roy Moore case.
Of course, we know the Roy Moore case is entirely b.s., but you get the point. There’s usually more than just one woman.
Now, why do I say I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more women in this case? Two reasons. First, because of a little bit of information that the Page Six article divulges: “His wife, Annette, famously filed for divorce in 2006, accusing him of ‘cruel and inhumane’ behavior, but withdrew the filing a month later after they reached a private agreement. They ostensibly live separate lives – she lives full time in the Hamptons with their children, while Matt resides in the city during the week.”
Now, back in 2006, I wasn’t paying much attention to the world around me, so forgive me for learning this only now. But the claim his wife made is rather troubling. “Cruel and inhumane” behavior? If that’s true, I feel sorry for Annette and her children.
The second reason I wouldn’t be surprised if more women are victims of Lauer is simply because of what Lauer is: a Leftist.
I’ve said this time and time again, but the Left is among the biggest threat to women in the world. The very fact that the Left has no morals or values is what endangers women the most. The Left respects no one and treats everyone equally poorly.
According to Hillsdale College, Winston Churchill said: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” in 1948. And in 1945, he said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Under socialism, everyone is equally miserable. This misery extends past financial wealth. The Left is socialist. And they’re the ones doing these things to multiple women. They have no good values or morals. They see people not as people but as opportunities.
They saw Obama as an opportunity to elect the first black President. They see women as an opportunity to advance their feminist agenda, while simultaneously getting closer (a bit too close) to women who believe their b.s. They see gay people as an opportunity to further drive us to immorality and sin. They see transgenders as an opportunity to do very much the same thing now that gay marriage is the law of the land and the Left has to be angry about something.
They see black people as victims of a racist past they never lived through. As victims of a racist past that the Left themselves are responsible for yet claim no responsibility for it.
The Left is entirely devoid of morals. Of values. Their hearts are filled with sin. There’s a reason Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins. It’s one of the major ones that billions of people commit and too often don’t repent for.
I often say that evil fills the hearts of the Left. Lust is considered a part of said evil. That’s why I’m not surprised that all these Leftists have done horrible things to multiple women. What surprises me is the courage many of these women have to expose these Leftists.
I can tell you, I didn’t think something like this would happen. And certainly not at this magnitude. It’s truly incredible to see these Leftists be exposed. The Left usually protects their own people, but it seems that’s not entirely the case. While they still protect the likes of Al Franken, John Conyers, Bob Menendez and whoever else in Congress who’s a Democrat has been accused of sexual assault, they are seemingly leaving members of the media in the dust.
Just last week Charlie Rose was fired from his network for the very same thing. Kevin Spacey was fired from his Netflix show “House of Cards” and the original domino, Harvey Weinstein, was fired from the very company he co-founded.
I don’t know what the reason is for these Leftists’ careers being basically obliterated, but I will certainly thank God for these unrepentant sinners being punished for their sins.
America’s justice system may not be perfect, but God’s justice system certainly is.
“When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
Do you want to know one of the reasons I like Trump so much? It’s because he deliberately goes out of his way to enrage the media and directs what they report on. His latest effort has been to poke fun at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s fake Native American heritage.
During an Oval Office event honoring the work of Navajo code talkers during World War II (one of whom actually praised Trump and said the country was in good hands), President Trump went out of his way to call out Warren for her claim that she’s partly Native American.
“I just want to thank you because you’re very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. They call her ‘Pocahontas.’”
As you can expect, the media went bananas over this comment, even saying it’s a “racial slur”.
It’s not a racial slur, you ignoramuses. IT WAS A PERSON’S NAME! It’s like saying the name “LeBron” is a racial slur because LeBron James is black. But the media, being the ignorant buffoons they are, decided that this was another instance of the President being “racist”.
Why is it racist of Trump to point out and make fun of Warren for claiming to be Native American but it’s not racist of Warren to baselessly claim she’s Native American?
According to Fox News: “The truth is, Warren is probably not Native American but claimed she was to advance her academic career that eventually landed her a gig at the prestigious Harvard Law School. The university even promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member back in 1996 in a Harvard Crimson piece on diversity on campus.”
And to what does she base her claims? A Boston genealogist’s report that Warren is 1/32nd Cherokee, that her family has told her stories about their origins (though no documentation was ever given) and that her grandpa had “high cheekbones like all of the Indians do”, according to Warren herself.
So being 1/32nd Cherokee means she’s Native American? So if I were to find out I’m 1/32nd African American (or just African) does that mean that I can list myself as a black man? That I can become a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)? That I can guilt trip a white man into apologizing for slavery? That my vote for Trump means that he received a slightly higher African American vote count?
Of course not! Being 1/32nd anything doesn’t mean a darn thing!
How about stories with no actual documentation? Does that mean that if my parents had told me when I was little that our family came from Mars that it makes me a Martian? Or if they told me we came from Mount Olympus that I’m part Greek god? OF COURSE NOT! Saying you’re part something doesn’t make it true. I could say I’m part cupcake but that wouldn’t mean it’s the truth!
Lastly, her grandpa’s cheekbones were high like all Indians’? My great grandpa was pretty tall. Does that mean he was Paul Bunyan or came from a family of literal giants? Of course not. A physical attribute doesn’t mean anything.
And yet, she still lives her life as though she’s a Native American with no basis for her claim. Why is that not outrageous for the Left? Why is Trump calling her out (briefly, at that) considered racist? And why is the word “Pocahontas” racist?
To answer those questions, the word “Pocahontas” is not racist. It’s a name. It never has been racist and it never will be racist. Trump calling her out shouldn’t be considered racist but the MSM can’t resist to attack him on anything they possibly can and report on the nickname as a “racial slur”. Lastly, it’s not outrageous for the Left because the Left has no values. They pretend to support things they really don’t.
They pretend to care about people when they really don’t. If they cared about African Americans, they wouldn’t victimize them at every turn, pass legislation that makes it harder for them to get out of poverty and blame police officers’ racism for the few African American deaths that occur at the hands of law enforcement. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a police officer killing an African American? I honestly can’t remember it happening since Trump became President (not saying it’s due to him winning but that no black person has reportedly been killed by a cop since then).
If they cared about black people, they would try to stop or at least slow down black on black crime.
If they cared about gay people, they would call out the Muslim world for literally KILLING them just for being gay.
If they cared about women, they would unabashedly attack those who actually HAVE assaulted women, not defend them just because they’re Democrats. If they cared about women, they wouldn’t be among women’s biggest threats in society.
They truly don’t care about anyone other than themselves. Selfishness is the reason Warren claims to be Native American. She used that to get a job at Harvard Law School and, according to Warren herself, that she would “be invited to a luncheon.”
So a job and an event to get free food is why she falsely and baselessly claims she’s Native American? And let’s not forget that she’s a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate hopeful as well. She would likely run on being both the “first woman and Native American president” in U.S. History.
It’s disgustingly hypocritical for her to claim such a heritage while simultaneously calling other people racist.
She’s a white woman. Not a Native American woman. Not that she’ll ever admit to her lies. She’s way too deep in it to simply backtrack on that. Not to mention she’s too proud to do the right thing. The Left never does the right thing, anyway.
Regardless, I will enjoy the fact that Trump once again has caused the media to lose a little more of their remaining sanity. I’ll enjoy the fact that he’s essentially directing the media on what they report on.
“In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one.”
One rather major theme this past year has been that the media wishes to portray Trump as a very unpopular and toxic president. That whoever he endorses in elections would be destined to lose, simply because of such an endorsement. However, this past weekend, an ABC network analyst, Cokie Roberts, admitted that “it will be hard to defeat [Moore] in the general election.”
Here’s specifically what she said: “[Trump] doesn’t have to go to Alabama. He’s done plenty for Roy Moore. Moore can put it in his ads, which he’s doing. He’s clearly got the endorsement of President Trump. Without the endorsement of President Trump, he won the primary. I think with the endorsement of President Trump, it will be hard to defeat him in the general election.”
Now THAT I did not see coming. A network analyst for a major fake news source admits that Trump’s endorsement of Moore makes it more difficult for the Democrat candidate to win? THEY NEVER DO THESE KINDS OF THINGS!
In the Left’s own little world, they assume every Democrat candidate everwhere is going to win either in a rather close race or a landslide victory. So for one of these people to admit that TRUMP’S endorsement of a Republican candidate makes things HARDER for Democrats is shocking.
Now, I do agree that Trump’s endorsement of Moore certainly helps. But even without it, I’m entirely confident Moore will defeat his opponent, Doug Jones.
Why? A couple of reasons, actually.
First, with the constant attacks against Moore, all the attention of the voters in Alabama has gone to him. Fake allegation after fake allegation, conservative voters in Alabama are doing with Moore what American voters have been doing with Trump: get even closer to him.
Trump proved himself to be a massive threat to the Left, resulting in the onslaught of attacks made against him before and after the elections. Every time they’ve attacked him, his base and supporters have only grown closer to him. We see the same with Moore.
Moore is proving himself to be a massive threat to the Left as well. In their desire to destroy him, they’ve only made him more powerful. Truth be told, before the allegations, I still would’ve voted for him simply because he’s a Christian and conservative. But now, I’m PASSIONATE about voting for him. And that’s simply because the Left made it known that they do not want him in Congress. And if the Left doesn’t want him in Congress this badly, I WANT HIM IN CONGRESS JUST AS BADLY!
But that’s only one of the reasons I think he’ll beat Doug Jones.
The second reason is that Alabama is a very Christian state. Christians tend to not be in favor of abortion or those who promote or accept abortion. Doug Jones believes that abortion should be an option until A BABY IS BORN!
Meaning that at any point in the 9 month pregnancy, Doug Jones believes it’s ok to kill the child. Even though a fetus can survive outside of its mother’s womb after 5 or 6 months, even then it doesn’t have a right to life according to Jones.
This very issue can boil any Christian’s blood. And as I’ve told you in the past, 86% of people in Alabama as of 2014 identify as Christian. It would be insanely difficult for anyone to run on “I think killing babies inside the womb at any point in time is ok” in Alabama and win a majority vote. Alabama is LIGHT YEARS away from California by that standard.
Now, I can see why Cokie Roberts believes it’s difficult to defeat Moore. Aside from Trump’s endorsement, Moore is basically the Senatorial candidate version of Trump. They both believe in many of the same things and hope to achieve many of the same things in their positions. They both want to Make America Great Again in every way they possibly can.
They both have been viciously attacked by the Left and the fake news media. They both have passionate supporters behind them due to those very attacks. They both wish to drain the swamp. They both want to Make America OURS Again.
They both have faced Establishment opposition who wish to maintain the status quo and keep America for themselves. They both seek to defeat said opposition at every turn they can.
Cokie Roberts is entirely right (something I thought I’d never say of someone from a fake news network). It will be very difficult for Democrats to win in Alabama. But that’s nothing new. Like I said in a previous article, Alabama has voted solidly Republican since Reagan. For the longest time, Democrats have had a difficult time winning in Alabama. It’s no different now.
Of course, I can’t see into the future. I can’t definitely tell you that Moore will win. But I personally have no doubt that he’s in prime position to win. Of course, the GOP will likely look to expel him and deny Alabama voters their preferred candidate, but that’s an issue to tackle after the election.
And I can assure you, I will be on top of that when and if it happens.
But for now, I shall enjoy the fact that even someone from a fake news source comes to the realization that the Democrats will likely experience yet another loss in a significant election.
1 John 5:4
“For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world – our faith.”
Is there anything anyone ever does that is inoffensive to someone nowadays? You literally can’t go outside without being called a racist, apparently. And one student from Pitzer College, Malcolm McCann, makes known his beliefs that outdoor clubs in schools are fundamentally racist.
According to Campus Reform: “In a recent op-ed for the school paper, a white Pitzer student frets that the colleges’ outdoor programs, though open to all students and well-funded, are ‘predominantly white spaces’ that deny people of color ‘access to the outdoors.’”
That statement reaches levels of stupidity close to the whole “a banana peel in a tree made people cry” incident a few months back.
McCann writes in his op-ed: “[The Pitzer Outdoor Adventure and ‘On the Loose’ outdoor clubs] claim to be accessible: while trips are open to any student wanting to go, not everyone feels the same ease in entering the outdoors. This discomfort is unfortunately caused by existing racial boundaries.”
I feel as though it’s necessary to remind you that McCann is white himself, so I have no idea how he would know how minorities feel when going outdoors. I’ve been offered to go hiking with some friends before. I turned down those offers not because I felt that my friends would automatically become racists the minute we got there but because I’m not really into hiking.
Likewise, I seriously doubt minorities’ concerns about joining an outdoor club center on how “white” the club is.
Regardless, McCann’s ridiculous sense of social justice is in full display for all to see. He continues his op-ed with: “Historically, white people in imperialist conquests have appropriated land as their own. North America rightfully belongs to indigenous communities, yet it has been taken away from them by force. Consequently, a false sense of ownership of nature permeates white America.”
I just love the way ignorant liberals often phrase things. He writes that the whole country rightfully belongs to indigenous communities, yet, I highly doubt he’d give up his house to some random Indian tribe. He believes the land belongs to the natives, yet he lives and thrives in land that is supposedly not his. Would that not make him a hypocrite?
What land would be his then? Some place in Europe that maybe his family owned before they moved to the colonies? Should he go there since the land his family now owns technically belongs to the natives?
But he’s not done. Not by a longshot. He continues with: “Similarly, the image of a modern outdoor enthusiast is white, as is the historical image of a naturalist. The great icons of nature – John Muir, Walt Whitman, Henry David Thoreau – are all white men. At present, most famous rock climbers are also disproportionately white.”
To which I must reply with: “so what?” What does it matter that those people he named are all white? I can make you a list of the 10 greatest basketball players of all time and I can easily say that only 1 of them is white. Does that mean the NBA is racist because of the disproportionate black to white ratio? OF COURSE NOT!
So why is it racist that there’s a disproportionate white to black ratio in outdoor activities? Often times, these things are about PERSONAL PREFERENCE!
Take me, for example. I’m from Latin America, where soccer (or futbol, as it’s called there) is the most popular sport there (and given the multiple countries with socialist governments, the best chance people have to escape poverty). I like it, but not nearly as passionately as fellow Latin Americans. My favorite sport (in case you couldn’t tell from the numerous references I’ve made over time) is basketball.
A sport that is most famous in 2 places: America and China. Off the top of my head, I can name 2 All-Star Latin American players (one of them retired and the other very close to retirement), so you can see that basketball isn’t nearly as popular for Latin Americans as soccer is. Yet, I love it with a passion.
I don’t care much for outdoor activities not because of the white people there, but because I’m just not into it. I’d rather be shooting some hoops than walking up a mountain carrying a 50 lbs. backpack or kicking a soccer ball.
And if I WERE into outdoor activities, I couldn’t care less about what skin color the other people around me are.
Still, I doubt one minority writer would convince an airhead such as McCann that most people aren’t so fixed about the color of people’s skin. Honestly, for someone to write an op-ed about how outdoor clubs are racist, they really have to be SEARCHING for a problem where none really lies.
And perhaps the funniest point he seriously makes (though that’s up for debate) is that aside from racial barriers, there are also financial barriers… which are also racial barriers, to this guy.
“Many National Parks are hundreds of miles from large cities. Consequently, only those with access to a vehicle and money for gas will be able to enjoy them. Similarly, only students with economic privilege have the resources to attend summer programs that teach wilderness skills.”
Does this guy not realize that he’s talking about COLLEGE CLUBS?! Chances are that the minorities attending such schools have the money to do so. Financial troubles are not something they have to worry about all that much. Granted, a student here and there might say “I can’t afford to go hiking”, which is fair enough. But that’s not a problem every single minority student runs into.
If I were attending college and had the chance to join an outdoor club, I wouldn’t join not because I don’t think I can afford to go to these National Parks but because I’m just not interested in those things.
And even if I WERE interested, my financial ability to go is not something I’d be worried about. Even if I couldn’t afford it, these kind of clubs are usually well-funded. According to Campus Reform: “At Pitzer College, the ‘Pitzer Outdoor Adventure’ club of which McCann is a member began this school year with over $7,500 of funding.”
So even the very club he’s A MEMBER OF is more than capable of funding any student who wishes to participate in the club’s activities. So McCann has exactly zero valid points to make.
Worst of all, not only does he come across as an absolute ignoramus, he’s also coming across as racist. I imagine the reason he wrote the op-ed is because he took one look at his fellow members’ skin tone and felt disgusted at the lack of diversity. He couldn’t get past their skin tone and thus concluded that outdoor clubs are racist and predominantly white.
While the white to black ratio may sway to the white side, that’s by no means a problem. It becomes a problem if the club’s main goal is to attract more minorities rather than focusing on the nature trips. It becomes a problem if the club becomes more focused on the skin color of its members. It becomes a problem if the leader of the school’s club denies entry to a white person wanting to join so that they can have open spots for minorities.
McCann’s op-ed solves no problems and only seeks to incite them. He looked for a problem in his club and decided to create one.
It’s similar to what some people think Congress has. They don’t think there are enough minorities in Congress. They don’t think they have enough women in Congress. Not enough Hispanics or Asians. My big concern isn’t about what a Congressman looks like. My big concern is about what a Congressman BELIEVES! How he works and what he wants done.
I’d happily vote for an African-American woman if she’s a Christian conservative. Same as I would a while man. Or a Hispanic man. Or Hispanic woman. Or Asian man. Or Asian woman.
The point is that I couldn’t care less about the way people look. But it’s clear that the Left does. I can assure you no conservative looks at Congress and thinks “it’s too white and masculine.”
On contraire, I challenge you to find much masculinity, especially from Republicans.
Jokes aside, these are things only the Left worries about. That’s how shallow they are. That’s how shallow they always have been. They’ve always looked at black people as slaves. Either literally or financially. It’s no different today.
They claim they’re not racist, yet they use people’s skin color as an argument. Remember how people called you racist if you didn’t vote for Obama? If the fact Obama was black was the only reason some people voted for him, that makes those people racist.
They portrayed Obama (among other things) as “the cool black guy”… both times. And both times, he ran against a supposedly “racist” candidate just because they were white (I won’t defend either Establishment scumbag, but I remember the way people felt throughout the elections, mostly through 2012).
Race is a major issue for which the Left seemingly "wants" to rectify but never really will. The concept of “white guilt” is entirely created by the Left and entirely ridiculous. It serves no purpose other than to further drive a wedge between people using race.
No white person has to feel guilty about things they had nothing to do with (but Democrats should feel guilty about supporting and fighting for slavery). Likewise, no black person should victimize themselves for things that never happened to them. Cotton shouldn’t be something that offends them. They never had to pick any for their “white masters”.
Still, the Left can’t help themselves. They simply MUST divide people in any way they can. And so, stupid op-ed pieces like these surface. There was no racial problem in Pitzer’s outdoor club, but this guy wants there to be.
“Whoever diligently seeks good seeks favor; but evil comes to him who searches for it.”
As you prepare for Thanksgiving today, hopefully you will remember that the celebration is about Thanking God for all the blessing you've received this year. And you will most likely remember, from your school years, what your teachers taught you about the holiday. That story you were told is the official version of the Thanksgiving story. But there's another one - the TRUE version - that no Hollywood producer and no tax-payer funded school will ever teach you: the Pilgrim's transition from socialism to capitalism.
That's right - the true story of Thanksgiving is the LESSON that the Pilgrims had to learn - the hard way - on how to govern themselves.
The official story of Thanksgiving, the one that is taught in school, says absolutely nothing about socialism. And it should, as socialism is the reason half the Pilgrims died. Socialism was first tried in the American continent by the pilgrims - it was an experiment. And it was a complete disaster. And yet, for reasons I don't understand, this experiment is still being tried today - in this country, by virtue of the massive government expansion over the last 70 years and in the rest of the world.
The official story of thanksgiving simply indicates that in the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag gathered to celebrate the colony's first successful harvest.
Generally, school teachers tell you that this Indian tribe taught the Pilgrims how to catch eel and grow corn, and that the success of the Pilgrims' first harvest was the direct result of Indians teachings.
But this story is not quite accurate - it's missing the most important part: how the Pilgrims dropped socialism and subsequently adopted the free market system that ultimately made America GREAT.
In order to understand the true story of Thanksgiving, we have to go back in history a little.
You see, the Church of England, under King James I, was persecuting everyone who didn't recognize the Church's absolute authority. The punishment for those who challenged its authority was imprisonment and, sometimes, death.
A group of separatists decided to emigrate - landing first in Holland to establish a community.
After 11 years, about 40 of them decided to embark on a dangerous journey to the New World.
We have to remember, these were very religious people, who left their home country so that they could worship God as they pleased, without risking their lives. The main reason they left Europe was to find a place where they could worship God freely.
In their hearts, such long and dangerous journey to America was similar to the Israelites' journey to the Promised Land. Much like the Israelites, the Pilgrims never doubted that they would make it. They trusted God...
Once in the New World, the first winter was devastating - half the Pilgrims died of starvation, including the colony's governor William Bradford's wife.
That's when the Indians came in to help the Pilgrims - and this is the part of the story we've all been taught.
What follows is the part that is omitted from history textbooks - the part that the left doesn't want you to know.
The first economic system implemented in the Colony was what we would now call socialism.
You see, before the Pilgrims left England, they signed a contract which seemed fair and stipulated that they were to pool, for the common benefit 'all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons' for 7 years, during which time colonists were to 'have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of the common stock of the said colony'
Once they arrived in the New World, they implemented the system per the contract they had signed - but in the first winter half the people died as a direct result of this system. The problem with it is the same problem we see today in socialist countries: people didn't put too much effort laboring the common land and as a result, output wasn't enough to feed all of them.
Socialism killed half the Pilgrims.
Governor Bradford realized the 'commune' system didn't work - he wrote the experiment 'was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense'.
He recognized that this form of collectivism was destructive to them - as the first harsh winter had proven. Half the people weren't carrying their weight - they didn't have to.
Bradford realized the system, which we now call Socialism, produced LACK.
What did Bradford do?
He scrapped socialism... permanently.
He assigned a plot of land to each family to manage, thus introducing for the first time what we now know as free enterprise - capitalism.
Now, with the capitalistic principle of private property, there was incentive to work - now there was...abundance.
Bradford and the pilgrims realized it was the new system, which we now call Capitalism, that produced ABUNDANCE
Abundance that the free market system enabled, and that they then shared with the Indians - to give thanks to God for their safety and discovery of the new system, and thanks to the Indians for their help.
2 Corinthians 4:15
'All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people, may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God'
Sticking with these past few weeks’ theme of sexual assault allegations, the Washington Post published a massive article about Charlie Rose’s inappropriate sexual misconduct. And I mean massive in more than one sense of the word.
The article, titled “Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them – with nudity, groping and lewd calls”, has well over 100 paragraphs and around 6000 words.
Obviously, I’m not going to talk about absolutely everything there. It’s a shame, really, because I’ll likely have to omit a lot of things I really want to include. Unfortunately, due to time and space constraints, I will have to dismiss a lot of the details and specifics the article contains. Regardless, I’ll do my best to stick with the most relevant points, as I always do.
The article begins with: “Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.”
I find it simultaneously interesting and unsurprising at the Post’s choice of words. They claim here that Rose has made “unwanted sexual advances” towards those women, according to them, including “groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.”
Yeah, that’s not just unwanted sexual advancement at that point. That’s actual assault. He may not have gone as far as to have raped the women, but non-consensual groping is considered sexual assault. That’s why I would have to rope in Rose along with people such as Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Kevin Spacey and such. He’s a sexual assaulter just as well.
We skip a bit towards another portion of the article. According to the WaPo: “Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.”
Again, we’re crossing over to “sexual assault” territory, not just sexual advances.
But, unlike the Leftist Washington Post, Rose’s victims are less keen on simply calling his behavior “sexual misconduct”.
Reah Bravo, an intern and associate producer for Rose’s PBS show, told the Post: “It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were. He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”
Right to the jugular on that one, huh? She’s labeling him for exactly what he is: a sexual predator. No “he made unwanted sexual advances towards me” or “he sexually harassed me”. She is flat-out, unapologetically calling him out as a sexual predator.
Another woman, Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, recalled “at least a dozen instances where Rose walked nude in front of her while she worked in one of his New York City homes. He also repeatedly called the then-21-year-old late at night or early in the morning to describe his fantasies of her swimming naked in the Bellport pool as he watched from his bedroom”, according to the Post.
According to her, she even told Rose’s executive producer, Yvette Vega, about the calls. And, according to Godfrey-Ryan, “she would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’”
To her credit, Vega did later say that she “should’ve stood up for them.” Yeah, she should’ve. Why would saying “that’s just Charlie being Charlie” be an acceptable excuse? That’s essentially saying “Charlie is very powerful here, so there’s nothing you can do about it except just take it and deal with it.”
Worse, that’s essentially excusing anyone for any deed ever. “Hitler is killing millions of Jews!” “Oh, that’s just Hitler being Hitler.” “Islamic terrorists are killing hundreds of people every year!” “Oh, that’s just Muslims being Muslims” (Though, that’s almost the excuse they really give for attacks.)
Why would someone saying “That’s just Jerk #7 being Jerk #7” be an acceptable response to someone coming to you FOR HELP WITH A SEXUAL PREDATOR?!
Worse for Godfrey-Ryan (or better, in some ways), according to the Post: “Godfrey-Ryan said that when Rose learned she had confided to a mutual friend about his conduct, he fired her.”
I say “better in some ways” because she’s at least far away from that creep after having been fired.
Next, we move on to Megan Creydt, who worked as a coordinator on Rose’s show from 2005 to 2006.
According to her: “It was quite early in working there that he put his hand on my mid-thigh.” According to the Post, Rose was “driving his Mini Cooper in Manhattan while she was sitting in the passenger seat.”
According to Megan: “I don’t think I said anything. I tensed up. I didn’t move his hand off, but I pulled my legs to the other side of the car. I tried not to get in a car with him ever again. I think he was testing me out.”
As a guy, it’s not very likely I’ll ever get into a situation similar to that one. Therefore, I’m not too sure I would be able to give a credible, realistic response. It’s easy to say that she should’ve just “removed his hand away from her leg and scold him”, but that’s not very realistic. It’s easy to think outside of the moment, but not in it. Besides, that’s Charlie Rose. He’s powerful, at least from her standpoint. Removing his hand may lead to a bad response from Rose, including maybe even firing her. So I can see why she didn’t say or do much besides just moving her legs a bit further away from the disgusting perv.
Moving on, the Post writes: “A woman then in her 30s who was at [Rose’s] Bellport home in 2010 to discuss a job opportunity said Rose appeared before her in an untethered bathrobe, naked underneath. She said he subsequently attempted to put his hands down her pants. She said she pushed his hands away and wept throughout the encounter.”
“Untethered bathrobe”, you say? Now who does that remind me of? Oh, that’s right! The first domino in this sexual assault domino effect: Harvey Weinstein. Yet another reason to put Rose in with that other disgusting creep.
There’s quite a few other stories about Rose’s disgusting behavior, but I don’t have the space to fit everything in.
But I think we’ve seen quite enough already. Charlie Rose is yet another Leftist pervert being called out by multiple women.
Some time ago, I wrote an article explaining the reasons as to why women become conservative. This is one of those reasons. LEFTIST MEN ARE PIGS!
No, never mind. That’s a horrible insult to pigs. Pigs can actually be cute sometimes. They serve a good purpose, especially for food. It’s hard to see these Leftists serving any sort of good purpose for the world.
These Leftist men are worse than scum. The Left in general is the very representation of the scum of the Earth. The Left seeks to control people in more ways than one, clearly. Beyond their ruthless drive towards establishing a new world order in which they are the kings of the world with the power to control people’s actions, thoughts, desires and beliefs, they seek to make people their slaves.
Slaves who will be forced to do exactly as they say. If one of these Leftist men orders his slave to have sex with him, his slave must obey. If one of these Leftist men orders his slave to not believe in God, his slave must obey.
It’s disgusting beyond description. That’s the kind of world the Left envisions themselves living in.
A world where Charlie Rose can do far more than what he’s already done. A world where Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, George Takei and everyone who’s been credibly accused of sexual assault can do far more than the actions people claim they have done. I say credibly because no one in their right mind believes Trump and Moore have actually done anything Leftist women say they have done.
I’m glad all of these Leftists are being exposed as sexual predators. Evil should be exposed on a daily basis. I mean, hey. That’s what we do here at Angels of Truth!
But while these evil people are being exposed, you have to think to yourself, “why is this happening?”
The Left always makes sure to bury stories like this, yet the New York Times broke the story about Weinstein (after having killed the story over ten years ago), and here, we see a very detailed article about Charlie Rose’s assault and misconduct published by the Washington Post, who, I’ll remind you, began the wave of fake allegations against Judge Roy Moore.
So why are they defying the status quo and actually exposing their own people? Perhaps for the same reason they’ve also turned their backs on Bill Clinton: to target Trump and other conservatives in the future.
The Left might be sacrificing some of their pawns to attempt to be on the side of women accusers so that, when the time comes, they can reignite the allegations against Trump.
And I think it’s important to know this (or at least theorize this to be the case) because by the time the Left actually majorly pushes for the allegations against Trump, we’ll know immediately what they’ve been doing.
The Left might care about its people, but you have to remember, they care more about their results. If they have to destroy a good number of their people, they’ll do it if it means achieving their goals. Their goals to win back the White House and eventually establish a globalist government.
Regardless, that’s just theorizing (though it’s a rather solid theory, if I may say so myself). As it stands now, we’re seeing the Left almost literally crumble a year after Trump’s election.
The powerhouse they believed themselves to be is almost non-existent. And if we continue to elect MAGA people, the Left will continue to be torn to shreds.
Regardless of their goals, they still have some serious opposition. I’m not talking about Trump. I’m not talking about us conservatives or freedom lovers and fighters. I’m talking about God. He is their ultimate enemy. And He is the One they will never be able to defeat.
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
Since the dawn of time, the concept of the “Alpha Male” has been prevalent in human history. And it’s a concept that, despite the Left’s best efforts, is still rather prevalent in today’s age.
According to the UK Daily Mail: “Women really DO fancy men with ‘muscles and money’ according to the website full of pictures of ‘hot commuters’ taken secretly by females on the London Underground”
By the way he writes it, you can tell that the author is rather shocked by this “revelation”. Apparently, women don’t want their boyfriends/husbands to be wussies. Who knew?
According to the Daily Mail article: “Women are often said to be the less shallow sex when it comes to what they find attractive. But a study of an online gallery of ‘hot male commuters’ has found that the fairer sex are just as superficial as men – as they find muscles and money the sexiest male attributes.”
Ok, it’s a little unfair to call women superficial when they find a muscular or wealthy guy attractive.
When you first lay your eyes on someone new, the first thing you tend to notice is how they look. Their skin color, their height, their girth, their muscle tone, their hair color, etc. Often times, this is a contributing factor in finding a partner.
Something about their physical attributes draws a member of the opposite sex towards them. It’s not superficial, it’s survival. It’s less necessary in today’s age when people can live far longer than in the past, but it’s still there, and it’s still rather necessary.
Think about why women are attracted to muscular and wealthy men. Muscles often are a sign of great physical strength and prowess. Women, being physically weaker than men, look for comfort and security in their life partner.
Physical strength often means the ability to protect someone. Women want to feel loved as well as protected. If her boyfriend is physically strong, it means that, if he’s a good guy, he’ll be able to protect her from any threat (though in today’s age, a gun can do just as well).
Wealth is another way a woman can feel comfort and security in the form of financial security. Money often means the ability to provide for one self or one’s family. This is as true today as it was centuries ago, though people are more easily able to become wealthy today than back then.
Now, I’ll grant you that physical strength and/or wealth shouldn’t be the only factors women look for in a man. Personally, I believe faith should also be a factor, because one’s faith often tells you a lot about someone’s character. Not everything, but a lot.
But faith is something people discover after having made personal contact with someone. We’re discussing strictly physical attributes here, nothing beyond that.
And when it comes to physical attributes and nothing else, can you blame women if they’re attracted to a man with muscles and/or money? OF COURSE THOSE ARE ATTRACTIVE QUALITIES!
Now, again, that’s just the physical. If a muscular guy is a complete jerk, most women will find that trait unappealing, even threatening at times.
Think of it this way. We conservatives often make the “good guy with a gun vs. bad guy with a gun” argument (because it works). Let’s replace “gun” with “muscles”. A woman can have a boyfriend with muscles, which she finds attractive. However, if the guy is a “bad guy” and he seems as though he’s willing and capable of physical damage to her, she will find it unattractive and VERY threatening. Women tend to not like guys that take advantage of them or abuse them.
On the other hand, if a woman’s boyfriend is muscular and a “good guy”, she won’t feel threatened in the least. Quite the opposite, she’ll feel SAFE with him. Because a “good guy” would never do anything to harm her. The only people a “good guy” would willingly harm are those who would present a threat or danger to himself and especially his girlfriend.
But again, that’s going further than basic attraction to physical attributes. Women, before meeting the guy and getting to know him, will be attracted to both a muscular “bad guy” and a muscular “good guy”.
It’s roughly the same with a wealthy “bad guy” and wealthy “good guy”.
Returning to the Daily Mail article, the “online gallery of ‘hot male commuters’” is a website called Tube Crush, in which women and gay men take pictures of random men they see on the London Underground subway, post it on the site and give a rating and make comments about the men.
According to the article: “Signs that the man is wealthy – such as a flashy watch or an expensive suit – were considered highly attractive by site users, as were powerful arm and chest muscles. But the classic image of the ‘new man’ – a man holding a baby – or skinnier or nerdier types of man were far less represented.”
What do you mean “new man”? And why is “a man holding a baby” considered a type of “new man”? Have men never held babies before? Have men never cared for babies before? Beyond that, what is a “new man” by your definition?
Let me tell you what it is: a man with no balls… well, not literally, of course. To the Left, a “man” is someone who pushes for women’s “right” to kill their babies. A “man” is someone who is submissive to his feminist girlfriend. A “man” is someone who will openly weep for any given reason. A “man” is basically a woman, to the Left. That’s been a large part of their effort to destroy gender.
Today, they will ignore science and make false claims that people get to choose their gender. But that’s still a rather new lunatic concept. Before that, the Left’s drive has been to take down men in favor of women. To make women the “better” sex while claiming it’s for “equality”.
The Left can’t accept the fact that men and women are not equal in everything. Consider the main topic of this article: physical attraction. I made the point earlier that men are generally stronger than women. And as much as the Left is repulsed by such a statement, it’s still true.
Naturally speaking, men are the providers and women are the caretakers. That’s not what man decided would be the “gender roles” for humankind. That’s what God decided would be the roles of mankind.
Now, that’s not to say that a man absolutely NEEDS to be physically strong and/or wealthy to find love. I myself am not insanely physically strong or wealthy. But that doesn’t mean that all is lost for me.
Again, there’s more to finding love than physical attributes. A relationship can’t last based on physical attributes alone. But it makes sense that, based solely on the physical, women are attracted to “Alpha Males”.
Returning to the Daily Mail article, one portion made me literally laugh out loud.
According to the article: “The research by academics from Coventry and Aberystwyth University, which also highlighted that gay men use the site, said that ‘white male privilege is still an attractive quality in men for many straight women and gay men.’”
Really? You’re bringing up “white male privilege”? What do you mean? Do you mean that black men can’t be physically strong/wealthy? That Hispanic men can’t be physically strong/wealthy?
I can assure you that, as a male minority, I CAN be physically strong/wealthy. Of course, personally, those are things I’d have to work towards, but it’s still possible. Do these “academic” types think that only white men can be physically strong/wealthy?
What a ridiculous statement. Women are often attracted to athletes. The NFL and NBA are both MOSTLY BLACK! So those are some examples of physically strong AND wealthy minority men. “White male privilege”. What a crock.
Anyway, according to the Daily Mail: “Lead researcher Adrienne Evans, from Coventry University… said ‘It’s a problem because although it appears as though we have moved forward, our desires are still mostly about money and strength’”
Moved forward? You think that women being attracted to muscular/wealthy men is against women’s “progress” in society? What am I saying? Of course she thinks that!
That’s another example of the Left being against science AND wanting to control what women (or people in general) SHOULD like and desire. 'It's a problem', she says...why is it a problem?.
Women will always be attracted to a physically strong or financially secure man. To a man that can provide safety and comfort, at least from a first glance.
Like I said, women typically aren’t attracted to wussies. If a man is too scared of confrontation, he might be too scared to protect his girlfriend. Now, I’m not saying that violence should be every man’s first answer, but it should always be an answer when everything else has failed.
A wuss dreads the thought of having to go that far and is often unwilling or unable to go there. If a woman sees that her boyfriend is unwilling or unable to protect her from any sort of threat or danger, she won’t like that. The wuss can be the nicest guy in the world, but if he’s unwilling or unable to protect his girlfriend, she will like him a good deal less.
Like I said, women WANT and NEED to feel loved and protected by men. That’s a fact of life that will never change no matter how “far” the feminist movement gets. Why? Because it’s ordained by God.
God is the one who set up the rules of the universe. He’s the one who set up the role of Man and the role of Woman. God created Man to be a certain way and He created Woman to be a certain way.
He created Eve from Adam’s side. Not from his head so she may rule over him nor from under his foot so he may be above her, but from his side so that they may be equals in the eyes of God. From Man’s side so that Woman would always be with him at his side.
The Left, try as they might, will never be able to utterly destroy the way God has ordained Man and Woman to exist.
“The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
When Donald Trump was elected, there were a good few of us hoping that, with the help of Republican Congressmen and women, we’d be able to Make America Great Again. This past year has been a demonstration of just how much the Republican Establishment is against the American people and just how much they’d rather maintain their status quo of submitting to the Democrats rather than working hard to beat them.
But one Republican Senator has shown that he’s tired of the constant attacks by the Left. He’s tired of the constant smear campaign the Left runs and the constant deceitful tactics they employ. Tactics such as, specifically, “Republicans only want to help the rich, not everyone else.”
That Republican Senator is Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). According to RealClearPolitics, Hatch “admonished Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) for accusing Republicans of writing the tax bill ‘for the rich’ at a late night hearing on amendments and markups.”
Brown said to Hatch: “With all due respect, I get sick and tired of the rich getting richer.”
Hatch responded with: “I come from the poor people, and I have been here working my whole stinkin’ career for people who don’t have a chance, and I really resent anybody that says I’m doing it for the rich. Give me a break. I think you guys overplay all the time, and it gets old. And frankly, you ought to quit it.”
Mighty powerful stuff from an elected Republican Senator. But he’s not done. He continued with: “What you said was not right (referring to Brown’s claim that the tax cut will benefit the rich). I come from the lower-middle class, originally. We didn’t have anything. So don’t spew that stuff on me. I get a little tired of that crap. Let me just say something. If we worked together, we could pull this country out of every mess it is in. We could do a lot of the things that you are talking about, too. I think I have had a reputation for working together. I like you very much personally, but this bullcrap that you guys throw out here really gets old after a while. And then to do it right at the end of this is just not right.”
Bravo! Way to stand up to the Democrats! And for once, I don’t mean this sarcastically!
Do you have any idea how long people have been hoping Republicans in Congress would do something like this? Putting Democrat liars in their place? Pushing back against the false notion that Republicans’ only intentions are to help the rich get richer?
What Brown said was entirely wrong. The bill doesn’t help the rich all that much. It helps to a certain extent, but they’ll still be paying almost all of the tax revenue the federal government receives. And yet, the Left makes it their mission to deceive the public into believing every single Republican effort when it comes to taxes will benefit the rich and only the rich.
In reality, the Democrat Party has been the most Wall-Street-friendly party in politics. On the outside, they claim that rich people should pay “their fair share”, but ensure that their friends get tax breaks or the ability to avoid paying taxes.
When was the last time Al Sharpton paid taxes? He’s been a tax evader for many many years now, but he’s still not just walking free, but also out in public claiming every white person is racist just because they’re white and that black people are always the victims of police brutality. That criminals who end up getting shot are sweet angels helping their communities.
But returning to taxes, we conservatives have had to endure a relentless assault coming from the Left without seeing much Republican push-back. Hey, forget taxes, THAT HAPPENS WITH ALMOST EVERY ISSUE!
The Democrats lie about an issue and Republicans make no noticeable effort to push back against their outrageous claims. On some issues, the GOP even SIDES with the Democrats. Take Roy Moore, for example. He’s been accused of things that haven’t been proven, but the Republicans were the first to demand he quit the race and resign should he win (even planning on expelling him from Senate).
Now take Al Franken. He’s a well-documented SEX OFFENDER and the most Republicans demand of him is that there be an “investigation”. An investigation that will likely take years to resolve and will amount to exactly nothing. No calls for his resignation coming from his political opponents. At most, I’ve seen ONE (ironically, Democrat) Senator calling for him to resign. Sen. Rebecca Otto (D-MN) called for him to resign, but she’s the only person I’ve seen call for it.
Moore has everyone in the Establishment calling for him to quit the race vs. one Dem senator calling for Franken to do the right thing.
President Trump hopes Congress will pass tax reform by the end of this year, and so far, I can see at least one Republican seemingly looking to do that.
Looking at Hatch’s voting record, he’s voted solidly conservative for a while now, even during the Obama era and especially during the Trump era. He’s voted to repeal Obamacare every time it’s come up this year. And seemingly, he’s looking to pass tax reform when that issue comes to the Senate.
I just wish every Republican pushed back against the Left like Hatch did. I wish every Republican would vote like Hatch has been.
Earlier, he said “if we worked together, we could pull this country out of every mess it is in.” And that’s right. If Republicans and Democrats worked together, they COULD do that. But Democrats don’t want that. Beyond that, enough Republicans don’t even want that.
When he said that, he meant working through bipartisanship. But that doesn’t even need to happen. Republicans own the majority in Congress. THEY DON’T HAVE TO WORK WITH DEMOCRATS TO PULL THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THESE MESSES! Messes, I’ll remind you, that were created by the Democrats.
If Republicans wanted to work together, Obamacare would’ve been repealed and replaced MONTHS ago, tax reform would’ve been taken care of and we’d be in a far better position to Make America Great Again than we are. Alas, the GOP doesn’t want to Make America Great Again. The Democrats certainly don’t want to Make America Great Again. They’re the REASON why we’re trying to Make America Great Again.
I don’t expect Senate Republicans to do the right thing and pass tax reform (I’m honestly hoping they’ll surprise me), but regardless of the result, I say “kudos” to Hatch for actually (though, not literally) showing that he does indeed have male genitalia.
Here’s hoping and praying the GOP doesn’t give me yet another reason to absolutely hate their guts.
“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
In the latter half of 2017, countless accusations against powerful people have come out, with some being utter b.s. *ahem* Moore *ahem* Trump *ahem*, while others are earth-shattering, such as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, George Takei and others.
Most recently, another accusation was made, this time about yet another Democrat: Sen. Al Franken. And not only is this just an accusation, there’s also tangible proof of the act.
As you can see from the picture above, Al Franken is seen groping a woman by the name of Leeann Tweeden, who is clearly asleep.
There’s more. Leeann also wrote a story on her local radio station’s website “790 KABC”, for which she works. The story is titled: “Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny About It.”
Without seeing the picture, you might be confused as to why she mentions that last part, about it not being funny. Of course it’s not funny. Sexual assault isn’t funny… well, to the normal person.
As you can see, Al Franken is not only groping her breasts, but he’s also smiling at the camera, as though to say “Yeah, I know what I’m doing and I don’t really care.”
Leeann gives us the context to the situation. She begins with: “In December of 2006, I embarked on my ninth USO Tour to entertain our troops, my eighth to the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks… Also on the trip were country music artists Darryl Worley, Mark Wills, Keni Thomas, and some cheerleaders from the Dallas Cowboys. The headliner was comedian and now-senator, Al Franken. Franken had written some skits for the show… Like many USO shows before and since, the skits were full of sexual innuendo geared toward a young, male audience…”
“Franken said he had written a part for me that he thought would be funny… When I saw the script, Franken had written a moment when his character comes at me for a ‘kiss’. I suspected what he was after, but I figured I could turn my head at the last minute, or put my hand over his mouth, to get more laughs from the crowd.”
She then writes that Franken insisted that they rehearse the “kiss”. Not once, but multiple times. He continued to badger her to rehearse the scene and she began to feel uncomfortable. Eventually, she said “ok”.
According to Leeann: “We did the line leading up to the kiss and then he came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth… I felt disgusted and violated.”
Yeah, I bet. For someone of his caliber to force himself on anyone is a disgusting thought.
She then details that after the incident, she decided against telling the Sergeant Major of the Army, the person who sponsored the tour. She decided against telling anyone of importance. According to her, she did tell “a few others on the tour”, but it’s unlikely that they were anyone of importance. Just people who were there for her when she needed them.
Leeann then writes that after the incident, she avoided Franken as much as she could. No one can blame her… well, except Franken, I guess. According to Leeann, Franken “repaid me with petty insults, including drawing devil horns on at least one of the headshots I was autographing for the troops. But he didn’t stop there.”
When the tour was over and they were heading back to the U.S., “After 2 weeks of grueling travel and performing I was exhausted. When our C-17 cargo plane took off from Afghanistan I immediately fell asleep, even though I was still wearing my flak vest and Kevlar helmet. It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through the CD of the photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one:…”
At this point, she shows the picture above.
“I couldn’t believe it. He groped me, without my consent, when I was asleep.”
She then writes that she wanted to scream out to the world what Franken had done to her, but that she was afraid at the time. Afraid of the potential backlash and damage done to her career as a broadcaster. But she also says that now, she’s no longer afraid. That she had debated in her mind whether or not to go public. Whether it’d be worth telling her story. That finally, she decided it WAS worth it.
Now, why did I title this article “Why Democrats Will Never Hold The Moral High Ground On Anything”? Because I believe that one of the reasons the Left is throwing Bill Clinton under the bus is because they want the moral high ground when it comes to accusing conservatives such as Roy Moore of sexual assault.
The Left believes that if they apologize for excusing Bill’s behavior, they will be rectified and be free to accuse conservatives of this stuff without the constant reminder that they were ok with Bill doing his intern.
But it’s stories like these the reason as to why they will never hold the moral high ground on anything. They have set up a new rule of “always believing the women accusing men of sexual assault.” The Left can’t go back on that after doubling down on it against Moore. They would have to either abandon Al Franken or be called hypocrites again for defending him.
I honestly don’t think they’d do the latter, because there’s clear photographic evidence of his misdeeds, not just an accusation.
But even if they do abandon Franken, their problem doesn’t end there. At the beginning of the article, I mentioned the likes of Weinstein, Takei, Spacey, and such. Of course, that’s a small percentage of Leftists who have been accused of sexual assault.
Do you wanna know why the Democrats will never hold the moral high ground on anything? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO MORAL GROUND TO COVER! Morality is a total joke to them. Or at least something for them to mold to their liking.
The fact that they WANT full-grown men to have the right to enter women’s restrooms shows you what kind of morals they have. The fact that they WANT women to have the right to kill their own unborn children in the name of “healthcare” shows you what kind of morals they have. The fact that Hollywood makes movie after movie depicting a woman being a sex object and nothing else shows you what kind of morals they have. The fact that the Hollywood men such women work with are likely to ASSAULT THEM sexually and try to keep it a secret shows you what kind of morals they have.
They have no morals. That’s just what happens when you not only shut Christ out of your life, but you also make fun of Him and His followers. Morality, conscience, much like everything else in this world, comes from God.
Evil, sin, these things come from Satan. A fallen angel without morals. Without a sense of decency. Democrats are much like him.
Look at today’s society. It’s the direct result of Democrat brainwashing children in schools and people using t.v., or other entertainment media.
Look at any show on Netflix’s or Hulu’s lineup and I dare you to find one righteous show. One show where the characters don’t talk about sex half the time. One show where they show a family going to church, praying and worshipping the Lord.
The closest thing I can think of a “righteous” show is “Blue Bloods”, but even that show has been going less and less Christian. In a show about a family of Catholic police officers in New York City, you’d expect them to be shown praying (something which they have done a maximum number of once in the latest season) and thanking the Lord not just for the food they are about to eat, but for keeping them safe in one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
My point is that today’s society is not very morally sound. A good character is attacked while evil is appreciated to near levels of worship.
The Democrats will never hold the moral high ground on anything because they’re too evil and wicked to hold something like that over anyone else. And when I say “Democrats” I of course mean all of the Left. I include Establishment Republicans as well because they’re no better.
The only time Evil will hold the moral high ground will be during Armageddon. During the fulfilment of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. And that’s only because by that point, Christians will no longer be on Earth. They will be in Heaven. Earth will be populated by these kinds of people.
Democrats will never hold the moral high ground because God and God alone occupies it. And no one can ever take that away from Him.
“’Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings. For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations.”
One month before the Alabama Senatorial election, Judge Roy Moore has been bashed for the allegations that he pursued inappropriate relationships with minors, including a sexual assault case of a 16-year-old girl.
Not only has the Left bashed him (after creating the allegations), but even Republicans are bashing him. Senate Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. John McCain have called for Roy Moore to quit the race. Worst of all, Sen. Cory Gardner, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would expel Moore from the Senate if elected. Basically, Alabama voters don’t matter to him and he’s going to expel a man that has yet to be proven to have done something wrong.
And what’s interesting is that the MSM has also been trying to separate Trump from Moore, essentially isolating the Alabama Judge. It’s obviously the Divide and Conquer strategy.
About a week ago, CNN wrote a story titled: “White House: If allegations against Moore are true, he should step aside.”
In the story, they quote things that Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Alyssa Farah, the VP’s press secretary, have said the leaders of the country’s opinions are on Moore. Huckabee Sanders said: “Like most Americans, the President believes we cannot allow a mere allegation, in this case one from many decades ago, to destroy a person’s life. The President also believes that if these allegations are true, Judge Moore will do the right thing and step aside.”
Farah has said that the Vice President “found the allegations in the story disturbing and believes, if true, this would disqualify anyone from serving in office.”
I agree with the POTUS and VPOTUS. If the allegations are true, he should step aside. The problem is EVERYONE ELSE IS THROWING HIM UNDER THE BUS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF MISDEEDS!
Cory Gardner has already decided that he’ll ignore the will of the Alabama voters and will expel Moore if elected. No evidence. No actual case, unlike Bob Menendez, who is actually ON TRIAL for sexual misconduct. No, it doesn’t matter. The media says he’s a pedophile perv, so he must be a pedophile perv and simply can’t be allowed a Senate seat.
Meanwhile, there’s plenty of evidence about Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct (and I say misconduct to put it lightly), and he was allowed to serve two full terms as President and is walking free. Why? Because he’s a Democrat. Granted, he’s been talked about negatively in recent time by the Left, but it’s mainly to further their own goals.
They’re throwing Bill under the bus NOW because they want to start focusing on Trump and the allegations made against him. Rush Limbaugh has said that it’s so that the Left can occupy the moral high ground while further accusing Trump of sexual misconduct. I don’t think that’s all of it.
They’re throwing Bill under the bus because he’s outlived his usefulness for the Democrat Party. Both Clintons have. So they’re trying to apologize for defending him so that when the time comes to further attack Trump on sexual assault, they’ll have the moral high ground. But beyond that, it’s also testing out a play in the Democrat Party playbook that, so far, appears to be working.
What do I mean? Look at the comments made by Republicans and Democrats. Democrats hate Moore and Republicans are abandoning him; questioning him. If Moore loses the election, the Left will credit the sexual assault allegations and use them on other conservatives because they’ve seen that it works.
They’ll also use it against Trump. The Washington Post is already looking to do that. A couple of days ago, they released an article titled: “If Republicans believe Roy Moore’s accusers, why not Trump’s?”
There it is! That’s the big story they want to get into! If the Left sees that they can defeat Moore with these allegations, they will allege that EVERY Republican who wants to run for any sort of office (and is conservative, not Establishment) is also a sex offender.
As a reminder, Trump also faced sexual assault allegations three weeks before the election. This isn’t a new play. But they’re doing something different here: they’re going even stronger at Moore with more and more allegations. Not only that, but they also see Moore as a big threat that’s easier to deal with.
He’s not running for President. He’s running for Senate. And while it’s a lower office, it still holds value. That one vote is one vote closer to passing the Trump agenda. The Make America Great Again agenda. The Left simply can’t allow it. So, they’re going even harder at Moore with these allegations than they did with Trump.
And it seems as though it might just work. Cory Gardner, a name that will now be associated with treason to the American people, couldn’t keep Trump from becoming President, but he CAN keep Moore from becoming Senator… at least as a Republican.
Gardner wants the election to be made null and void if Moore wins. Meaning that Alabama Governor Kay Ivey will have to hold a special election, starting the election process all over. But that doesn’t mean Moore will be defeated. He can still run as an Independent. And if he does that, he can run on “The Republican Party has betrayed you, Alabama. You wanted me, but they denied your will. Show them that you’re voting for America First, not Republican First!”, or something along those lines.
But that’s a bridge that we’ll cross when we get there. For now, I want to tell you why I think Roy Moore is innocent: because this is far too convenient for the Left.
I’ve said this before, but really think about it. These allegations are about events that happened DECADES AGO! And yet, we’re only NOW hearing about them? Five women have come forward, and the Left has made sure to capitalize on it, saying that people “knew” about Moore’s misdeeds for a long time. That’s eerily similar to the Harvey Weinstein case. Hollywood people knew about his misdeeds but the story didn’t come out until this year. And you’re telling me Moore is the same as Harvey?
And don’t give me that “he’s a powerful man so he thought he could get away with it” b.s. These accusations are about what happened 40 or so years ago. Back then, he wasn’t a judge. Not even close. He was an Assistant District Attorney for Etowah County, Alabama from 1977-1982. He was a nobody back then, so why not bring these accusations to light back then?
There’s no evidence of Moore’s misdeeds, only allegations. But no one is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because he’s a Republican (and dangerous to the Left), the Left needs to destroy him. Because he’s a Republican, other Republicans have to pretend to hold the moral high ground and pretentiously declare that he should step aside, regardless of whether or not the allegations are true.
Let me tell you, if Gardner really goes through with deciding the election for the people of Alabama, the Republican Party is as good as dead. The Moore allegations have made national news. His expulsion from Senate, if he wins, will also make national news. Therefore, the Republican Party’s betrayal of the voters in Alabama will make national news as well.
The GOP has been on thin ice for a very long time. Ignoring the will of the voters will utterly shatter that ice and ultimately kill the Republican Party. It will show that they can’t be trusted. Other than Establishment socialists, who would run for the Republican Party after that? Conservatives would look to form their own political party and win with that. It would likely mean Democrat victories for some time, but it’s worth it to see the GOP be torn to shreds. Eventually, a new conservative candidate would be voted into office.
That would mean the absolute end of the GOP’s relevance in politics. Not that Gardner cares. He’s more than ok with Democrats winning for centuries if it means defeating a conservative such as Roy Moore.
Do you want to know why I think Roy Moore is innocent? Because he’s not the big target here. He’s just a test dummy. The Left is testing their “sexual assault” play to use against other conservatives. The allegations don’t have to be true, but enough people have to believe they are. That’s how they win.
Normally, one Senate seat wouldn’t matter so much. So why does this one matter so much? Because it will keep the Left from achieving their ultimate goal: completely defeat Donald Trump. One more vote for the Trump agenda means one less person sabotaging it.
Roy Moore is innocent because he’s being targeted by the Left and the RINOs too much for it to be believable. They are evil psychopaths. Why would I believe anything they say? Beyond that, why would I come around to thinking they’re right just because more women show up and say Moore did stuff to them? Telling a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true.
And yet, we’re supposed to believe these women NOW when Moore presents such a threat to the Left? When it’s NECESSARY for the Left to attack him? No, I, along with fellow Alabama voters, see right through that.
We will vote him into office as a Republican and as an Independent if need be. We won’t be denied our pick for Senate. We won’t be denied the America we want. We will drain the swamp the first chance we get.
When the time comes, Establishment candidates such as John McCain, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and Cory Gardner will be voted out of office.
Trump will drain the swamp from the inside, us voters will drain it from the outside.
“By your endurance you will gain your lives.”
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...