NYT: FBI Didn’t Spy On Trump, They Just Had Informants Secretly Ask About Trump-Russia Under False Pretenses
Imagine you are in a courtroom, hearing a defense attorney in a murder trial arguing to the judge that his client did not actually commit the murder despite all the evidence clearly pointing to him as being guilty. Imagine the defense attorney then attempts to argue the definition of “murder” and says: “Your Honor, my client did not murder the victim; he simply un-alived her without her consent.”
You would think that’s a pretty stupid argument, correct? And yet, that’s the sort of argument the New York Times tried to make recently about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.
The NYT ran a piece where they attempted to downplay what will be in the Inspector General’s report regarding Obama-era FISA abuses and FBI spying into the Trump campaign before the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, the NYT doesn’t have the IG report yet because it will be released on December 9th. So what is their source of information? “People familiar with a draft” of the report aka anonymous sources that may or may not exist.
Here is a chunk of what the NYT wrote:
“The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.”
“… The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.”
“The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page – eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.”
It’s interesting that they would say that conservatives were claiming the FBI was spying on Trump, because that is also what the New York Times essentially admits later on IN THIS VERY PIECE.
Later in the piece, we read:
“The F.B.I was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.”
“Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopalous while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an ‘all time biggest political scandal’ when it emerged last year.”
“The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopalous in August 2016…”
So what exactly do we have here? An outright contradiction within the NYT piece. Read the very first part I shared with you again. The NYT said earlier that the report would find that there was “no evidence” that the FBI tried to “place undercover agents or informants inside” the Trump campaign. And later on, they say that they DID place undercover agents and informants, at least to engage in conversation with members of the Trump campaign under false pretenses to discuss Trump campaign affairs and report any information discovered back to the FBI.
That’s called “SPYING”. What’s worse is that this isn’t even the first time the NYT tried something exactly like this. Back in May of 2018, they had the following piece: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
Let me go back to my original hypothetical scenario of the courtroom scene. The defense attorney (NYT) has just claimed that his client (the FBI) did not murder the victim (spy on Trump) but simply caused her life to end by his hands without her consent (used an informant to extract information from Trump campaign staffers and report back to the FBI). Do you think the defense attorney is using an even semi-decent argument? OF COURSE NOT! He’s trying to make a distinction without a difference. He’s basically saying the same thing but trying to make it mean something else entirely.
“I didn’t rob the bank, your Honor, I just forcefully made a manual withdrawal of all the money in the safe while threatening to kill people with my gun.” It’s an insanely idiotic argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the New York Times. How many stories have I written myself that discuss the outright idiocy of this “news” organization? How many stories have they written that I did not write about myself that are equally as stupid?
I don’t know what the IG report will ultimately say, but if it doesn’t fully acknowledge the FBI’s egregious attempts at spying on the Trump campaign, and in particular, James Comey’s actions of using the defunct Steele dossier as a means to try and get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then Horowitz messed up badly. Even by the NYT’s own admission, there were informants looking into the Trump campaign under false pretenses and trying to report back whatever they found. What the FBI did is out in the open and is, as Trump says, the all-time biggest political scandal in American history.
If this wasn’t about politics and only about possible ties to a foreign government, why didn’t the FBI look into Hillary’s ties to Russia and Ukraine? If this behavior is perfectly “normal” for law enforcement practice, why didn’t they plant a spy, oh, sorry, I mean an informant, into the Hillary campaign? With all the allegations regarding her and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign assistance, why didn’t the FBI think to look at her too, if this wasn’t about politics?
It’s not like there was any actual proof of Russian ties to the Trump campaign or the staffers themselves; just allegations. So if that was all it took, why did Hillary get a pass despite all the allegations surrounding her?
Rhetorical questions, all, as we definitely know the answer. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok acknowledged given their texts about the then-POTUS knowing about it and given the “insurance policy” Strzok mentioned.
No amount of mental gymnastics and word redefining will erase the fact that the FBI, under orders from Obama, spied on the Trump campaign.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Today is a day of Thanksgiving - of expressing gratitude to our Lord for the blessings that we have received this year and the blessings that are still in store for us. God is a good God - in fact, the goodness of God is not just a character trait that God has, but rather God IS goodness. He's the source of goodness. All good things come from Him and Him only. That's what it means that God is good. And when bad things happen, you know what the Bible says: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28). So if you love God, be thankful because anything bad that may have happened to you this year God will use for your good.
But the pilgrims, when they celebrated the first Thanksgiving in what would some day be called America, had a lot to be thankful for. Just the previous year, much of the population had died of starvation, and the cause of such a terrible catastrophe was none other than the communal experiment that Governor Bradford had attempted - an experiment that can only be described as the first Socialist experiment in the Americas.
You probably have heard time and time again the official version of the story of Thanksgiving: in the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag gathered to celebrate the colony's first successful harvest after the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to catch eel and grow corn, and the success of the Pilgrims' first harvest was the direct result of Indians teachings.
But this is only a limited version of what actually happened. The truth, as always, is a little bit more complicated - and richer - than that.
Here's what really happened:
The Church of England, under King James I, was persecuting everyone who didn't recognize his Church's absolute authority. The punishment for those who challenged its authority was imprisonment and, sometimes, death.
A group of separatists decided to emigrate, first landing 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 as they pleased, without risking their lives. 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.
According to the story that you've been taught in school, this is when the Indians came in to help the Pilgrims, which is all true.
What follows is the part that's 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 reached land they implemented the system as 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 the system was 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".
Bradford 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.
Socialism produced LACK
What did Bradford do?
He scrapped socialism forever!
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.
Capitalism 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.
Don't let the Left lie to you. Learn our history.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction"
For a few months, I have mostly mentioned impeachment in passing, mostly as part of an overall point in an article that slightly relates to it. But after a few months, and in particular, two weeks of the House Democrats rigging impeachment rules in their favor, denying due process for the President, and denying Republicans the chance to interview their own witnesses, we find that support for impeachment has either been ticking down as time went on or not really moved at all – neither of which are good for Democrats who need to gain ground in order for this to not be a total failure.
None of the witnesses the Democrats interviewed actually witnessed anything and could, at best, offer second or third-hand knowledge of the situation. Trump releasing the transcript of the July 25th phone call with Zelensky essentially ruined the Democrats’ efforts because now, they can’t say that something happened when it didn’t and hope that a vast majority of people believe them. With the transcript, we have the ability to read what was said during the call and find that no quid pro quo actually took place, or that, even if you wanted to stretch things a little, that it’s not exactly an impeachable offense to ask for a foreign government to investigate someone who happens to be a political opponent when they possibly and likely committed crimes in that country.
After all this time, we find several polls that have bad news for Democrats and one that attempts to keep Democrats energized about impeachment but ultimately is mostly fake news.
First, let’s look at the Huffington Post/YouGov poll. This poll shows that only 42% of all adults believe that Trump is guilty of withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens.
For the fact that we had roughly two months of non-stop anti-Trump propaganda (specifically talking about Ukraine and quid pro quo; the anti-Trump propaganda has been around for years at this point) and two weeks of hearings that supposedly were Trump’s “worst” weeks and the testimonies of the “witnesses” were “damning” and very “damaging”, 42% is hysterically pathetic.
It gets worse, too. 57% believe Trump is either innocent or are unsure about whether or not he is, which is devastating for Democrats trying to prove guilt and being reinforced by fake news sites that they are doing a good job. Granted, 26% of that 57% are unsure, but again, the Democrats are tasked with building a case to at least convince people that Trump is guilty, even if they cannot prove that, and are failing miserably at it.
Even worse than that, even among the 42% of those who say Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens, only 40% of them said that that is an impeachable offense. So out of the relatively few people who believe Trump is guilty, even FEWER people believe it’s an impeachable offense to do what he did, with the rest believing Trump’s actions were either “appropriate” (16%), “inappropriate but not impeachable” (26%), or are altogether unsure (18%).
So even out of the few people that the Democrats have convinced Trump did what they allege he did, the vast majority of these people do not necessarily agree with the idea that Trump’s actions are impeachable. That is hilarious.
Let’s move on now to a Politico poll. Prior to the hearings, support for impeachment stood at 50%. It now stands at 48%. Still higher than I honestly think they generally are, but considering it’s a DROP FOLLOWING THE SUPPOSEDLY DEVASTATING HEARINGS, that tells you an awful lot about how badly the Democrats messed up here. When support for impeachment of Trump drops AFTER Democrat-led hearings occur, that’s a clear-cut sign that the hearings were a massive flop. They were meant to convince people that Trump should be impeached and try and prove something nefarious occurred between Trump and Ukraine, but they had the opposite effect: less support.
Even worse for the Democrats in this poll is the support from Independents. Prior to the hearings, 37% of Independents opposed the inquiry. Now, that number stands at 39%. 44% of Independents now support impeachment, down from 47% before the hearings.
Again, considering the purpose of the hearings, this is devastating for Democrats hoping to build a case against Trump. Proving that Trump broke the law isn’t the point of impeachment. Yes, the basic premise is that impeachment should occur when high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred, but actually proving they happened isn’t necessary for an impeachment and removal. What’s necessary is partisan politics and the ability to convince the public, at least a sizeable majority, that the President is guilty, even if he or she isn’t, and they should be impeached and removed from office.
Impeachment is a political tool to get rid of the opposition, not a legal proceeding. And at this, the Democrats are failing abhorrently.
Even the one poll that attempts to keep Democrats from being discouraged (from CNN, if you can believe it) doesn’t exactly help them once you read a bit into it.
CNN reports that support for impeachment sits at 50%, with 43% disagreeing. On the outset, this is good for Democrats, but again, once you read into it, that changes. You see, these numbers are exactly the same as they were before the hearings. They didn’t improve following the hearings, they just remained the same.
And this is the only poll that says that they didn’t move, either. Considering the fake news hole that CNN is, you can bet that they oversampled Democrats to the point where the figures remained unchanged.
But regardless of what the case may be, not one of these polls is really a positive for the Democrats. Again, they have to build a case in favor of impeachment and have to convince people to side with them. They are either not improving in doing that at best (in one poll) or flat out shooting themselves on the foot (in multiple polls).
This, coupled with the fact that Trump’s overall approval is ticking up even in some of these polls, and the fact that both Rasmussen and Emerson report that 34%+ of African Americans support Trump, and you have a recipe for disaster for Democrats moving forward.
They are left with two terrible options: impeach a popular president with little support, sending it to Republicans in the Senate who will 100% vote to acquit and actually give the President due process (and most likely expose the dealings of the Bidens, thus hurting Joe in the long run as a Democrat candidate), or not impeach Trump and risk their base’s wrath and their donors clamping up their wallets, potentially losing the House in the process due to lack of support from their own base, let alone those outside of it.
Granted, I fully expect this to lead the Democrats to lose everything come 2020 no matter what choice they make (particularly if Biden is the nominee, which I doubt), but Pelosi has to choose the better of two terrible options.
I think the Democrats will ultimately vote to impeach the President, if only to save themselves from the ire of their base (which they should know very well, considering one hardcore Leftist Democrat has had to recant her statement that she opposed impeachment). Of course, the issue would then be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate, where they will give Trump due process and even likely choose to investigate the Bidens and expose their corruption (which isn’t all that hard to do) and eventually vote to acquit the President.
This impeachment sham will likely be remembered as the biggest political misstep in the history of this nation. And while I understand why the Democrats chose to pull the trigger on impeachment so quickly once the Ukraine story was out, it’s still a terrible misstep. The Democrats bet that Mueller would deliver the goods and that failed after two and a half years. Now, a year away from the 2020 election, the Democrats want to avoid Trump getting another four years as POTUS, and considering the weakness of their presidential field, they opted to rush into impeachment as soon as the story broke out.
The problem came when Trump released the transcript of the phone call, showing his innocence and stripping the Democrats of their ability to lie about what was in it (granted, they still tried to do it, but it obviously flopped). Of course, ultimately, Trump still did nothing wrong, but again, public opinion is what matters.
The release of the transcript threw a wrench into the Democrats’ impeachment hopes and now, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Democrats now have to pick their poison in whether or not to impeach Trump, knowing that neither will be good for them moving forward.
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
Continuing the effort to try and discredit Trump’s popularity, and more importantly, legitimacy as President of the United States, multiple Leftists have tried to build the case that if you are a Trump supporter, you are in a “cult”. Not only is that flatly untrue and insulting (not that I would expect less from these people), but I believe the shoe fits on the other foot.
Recently, during a segment ironically titled “Reliable Sources”, CNN’s Brian Stelter hosted a “mental health expert” by the name of Steven Hassan, who was also pushing a book he wrote, titled: “The Cult of Trump.”
So, of course, this is nothing but objective, fact-based, non-partisan news and you have been brainwashed if you disagree. Nothing wrong with this at all.
Sarcasm aside, Hassan began: “I define a destructive cult as an authoritarian pyramid-structured group with someone at the top who claims to have total power and total wisdom, that uses deception and control of behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions to make people loyal and dependent on obedient followers.”
Already, we have plenty to discuss. Okay, say we agree with this definition. Why would this apply to Trump and not someone like, say, Obama? Because back during the Obama years, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, profited tremendously from his dealings with Burisma. Yet, this didn’t come to light until recently, well after the Obamas were out of the White House.
And it’s not like this was a secret. Joe Biden is on video admitting to threatening Ukraine with withholding financial aid, something that Obama would’ve been responsible for, if Ukraine officials didn’t get rid of the prosecutor investigating Hunter.
Going even beyond just that story, let’s not forget that throughout the 8 years of Obama, he basically could do no wrong in the eyes of the fake news media. Despite all the controversies surrounding the administration, multiple people still insist that the only controversy Obama had to endure was wearing a tan suit (even though I have no idea why it even would be considered a controversy; it’s just a suit).
They will completely ignore Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Operation Choke Point (an illegal attempt at shutting down gun stores), and let’s not forget Obama used the intel community to spy on an opposing candidate and collude with foreign agents to create a fake dossier to pass it off as truth. All of these stories were swept under the rug in an effort to protect Barack Obama. Anyone who dissented was considered “racist” for “attacking an African-American president.”
Hassan further claims people who support Trump are being “fed propaganda” and are “not encouraged to think for themselves”. “Much of what they’re hearing is emotionally driven, loaded words, thought-stopping and thought-terminating clichés like ‘fake news’ or ‘built the wall’ or ‘Make America Great Again.’”
They accuse us of being fed propaganda when CNN was nothing but a Russia-conspiracy network for the past THREE YEARS until that totally flopped. Day after day, they pushed the fake conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians and yet TRUMP SUPPORTERS are the ones being fed propaganda? Not a single piece of evidence came of this investigation, with Mueller declaring in no unclear words that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
This was in page 2 of volume 1 of the Special Counsel report. This is what tells us there was no Russian collusion, or at least that none could be clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And if there was as vast an amount of evidence as people like those on CNN claim there was, Mueller wouldn’t have put that part into his report.
For three years, we were told that Trump colluded with Russia by the Cult News Network (might as well call them that, since by Hassan’s own definition, the fake news media falls into this category and it’s a good play at their name). We were told, time and time again, that this story was going to be the end of Trump, or another story was going to be the end of Trump, or this week was Trump’s worst week, or that week was his worst, or the walls are closing in on Trump today, or they are closing in on him tomorrow. Three years of nothing but fake news surrounding ONE topic, let alone anything else they talk about.
When you make a claim that is not true, that means you are lying. For three years, CNN has been lying about Trump-Russia collusion and continue to make up other lies as well in an effort to destroy Trump. This is the deception that makes CNN and the other fake news organizations fall into the category of “cult”, and their viewers into the category of “cult followers” or “members.” When you are repeatedly told something and believe it despite the truth, despite reality, that is cultish thinking, if not outright insanity.
I once mentioned that I got into a Twitter argument with someone who claimed that the Mueller report proved Trump colluded with Russia, despite the excerpt that I quoted earlier showing the opposite. This tells me that she either didn’t read the report and was told what was in it by someone else (cult-like) or read it and was simply left completely insane by the last few years.
This is the sort of damage the fake news media causes people, and it’s insanely rich that they would try and categorize support for Trump as cult-like behavior. Do they forget that most of Trump’s supporters are Christians? We follow Christ, and we support Trump because he also follows Christ. What reason does an actual Christian have to support any of the Satanist Democrats we see today? People who insist that murder of children, in and out of the womb, is moral; who insist that we are a fundamentally racist nation; who wish to bankrupt our country in order to “pay” for “free” healthcare for ILLEGALS, as well as a multitude of “green” programs that strip people of civil and constitutional rights in a futile “effort” to “fight” climate change. Why would any sincere Christian support such people?
We support Trump and will continue to support him so long as he doesn’t stray from what made him so popular in the first place. We didn’t vote for Trump because he was a reality TV star or because he was a successful real estate mogul or because he was particularly charismatic. We voted for him because he understood perfectly where the nation was headed and knew that we had the ability to Make America Great Again, so long as the disruptive regulations and bureaucracies got out of the way.
When we say someone is spreading “fake news”, that’s not a cliché. That’s pointing out that someone is lying about someone or something because they have biases that overshadow objective reporting. When we say “build the wall”, that’s not a cliché either. It’s a desire to secure our border, keep bad people from getting in, keep people who would take advantage of our country out of it, and ensuring that there are as few Kate Steinle cases as humanly possible. And when we say “Make America Great Again,” it’s a desire to actually bring America back to the greatness it once knew, because it had been brought down several pegs due to the Washington Establishment’s globalist ideals.
Before Trump, the President of the United States would go on apology tours for all the “injustices” that America had supposedly committed. Before Trump, we had a President of the United States who would declare “mission accomplished” extremely prematurely and would send us down the path of endless wars. Before Trump, we had a President of the United States who couldn’t keep his namesake in his pants and got impeached for perjury. Before Trump, we had a President of the United States who lied to the American people about not creating any new taxes and then turning around and creating new taxes.
Now, we are putting America First wherever we can, even despite what the Washington Establishment is trying to do in Congress and in lower courts.
To say that any of these desires is “cult-like” is nothing short of a pathetic attempt at projection. Everything Hassan said about Trump and his supporters being a “cult” can be more-so applied to the Left and to the fake news media like Brian Stelter and the rest of the Cult News Network.
It’s utter hypocrisy to claim such a thing of Trump supporters and it’s very much the reason why the fake news media is so hated. It’s not news anymore. Someone tuning in to CNN isn’t doing it to get informed on what’s happening, but to be given talking points to use on social media or at the dinner table during Thanksgiving about any given topic.
In fact, Thanksgiving was part of Stelter’s segment, as Hassan encouraged CNN viewers to “deprogram” Trump supporters during Thanksgiving. They are telling people “your Trump supporting cousin is in a cult, here’s what you should do to help them join ours-… eh, I mean, to help them escape.”
They do not believe that anyone could honestly support President Trump; that they had to be “mind controlled” or “brainwashed” in some way. Again, it’s nothing apart from total projection of what they actually are. Their message is basically: “If you do not agree with us 100% of the time regarding everything we discuss, you’re in a cult.”
So who actually is in the cult here?
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
If you’ve ever read the Old Testament you've noticed a cycle in Israel’s life as a nation – they go from being blessed to being cursed. They go from receiving the abundance that God only can give, to receiving punishment that only God can give. From the promise of taking the Israelites to a land “flowing with milk and honey”, to sending a Savior, to the promise that we will lend and not borrow – all blessings promised by God Himself in Scriptures. And yet, Israelites were oppressed by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Assyrians and so on - punished by God time and time again - but delivered every time afterwards. The question is: what was the reason for their punishment?
As you read Scriptures you know that the Israelites over and over again grew apart from God, abandoned Him, began worshiping pagan gods and disobeyed God at every opportunity, trusting in themselves rather than God. Israel brought curse upon itself. Each cycle of blessings was the direct result of Israel's faithfulness towards God, and each cycle of curses was the direct result of Israel's unfaithfulness towards God.
Why am I telling you this?
Because the Bible teaches that the fate of a nation is entirely dependent on the worldview held by its inhabitants. So please keep this in mind as I share the latest poll conducted by Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center conducted a poll, with the results published on November 15th, in which 63% of the adults polled indicated that they want religious groups to remain out of politics, 76% don’t think Churches should endorse specific candidates and 37% of them believe Churches have too much influence in politics.
In addition, the poll shows that 55% of Americans maintain that Religion is a force for good in society, 53% think it strengthens morality and 50% believe it brings people together.
What’s happening to America? Why do people insist that we forget God? Why do we even ask God to bless America?
America was founded on Christian principles – in fact, the Pilgrims signed a contract, called the Mayflower Compact, in which they stated that they were coming to our shores “in the name of God” with a clear purpose: “for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith”. That was their purpose.
Fast forward to the 1740s and you find yourself in the middle of a Religious Revival also known as the Great Awakening led by pastors such as Jonathan Edwards and his famous sermon ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’. The Great Awakening ultimately led to the American Revolution of 1776.
Furthermore, James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, is attributed for saying this:
"We have staked the whole future of American Civilization NOT upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the ten commandments."
That’s right, my dear friend. Our constitution and our entire civilization was founded on the Ten Commandments – the very Ten Commandments that are now banned from public buildings. And yes, this quote is unconfirmed as having been said by Madison, but it does reflect the attitude of the times and the beliefs held by Madison, who firmly believed in man's ability to self-govern and believed in Christianity as "the best and purest religion" in Federalist #39.
What's more, while that quote is unconfirmed, the following one is confirmed:
"[T]he belief in a God All-Powerful, wise, and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."
So it becomes very evident that both quotes - the one confirmed and the one unconfirmed - by Madison clearly reflect both the attitude of the times and the personal beliefs of the man.
But in any case, if you fast forward to the Civil War, in which the Democrats in the South were willing to die to keep their slaves, ultimately even the abolition of slavery was strongly pushed by religious groups. For example, in 1818 the Presbyterian Church General Assembly adopted a resolution that used bold language to reject slavery: "We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature; [and] as utterly inconsistent with the law of God."
Our history shows that America, as long as it remained a Christian country, saw blessing after blessing after blessing coming from God.
But if Church is required to stay out of politics, how do we expect to have a moral and blessed country? If you think about it, every policy discussion is a moral discussion: from taxation, to abortion, to transgender bathrooms to drag queen story hour in kindergarten to healthcare….ALL of these issues are moral issues. And if we’re going to discuss moral issues apart from the standard that is the morals written in the Bible, why wouldn’t a just God consider punishment for us?
We have the benefit of Israel’s history – we know what happened to THEM, how come we don’t realize that, unless we turn to God again, the only possible fate for us is severe punishment? And how are we going to turn to God again unless Christians step up to the plate and begin influencing policy?
There is such thing as separation of Church and State. But what this means is the State doesn’t tell the Church what to preach on and the Church doesn’t form armies to defend the State. Christians can serve, of course, in the military. But the Church as an organization is not to maintain an army.
Separation of State and Church was never meant to be separation of State from God. We’re still one nation under God. And if we’re going to Make America Great Again, we need to make America GODLY again. And this will take the effort and courage of all of us Christians to influence policy. And you cannot do that unless we get involved in Politics – and that includes pastors, priests, theologians, etc. We have two options: either we let pagans impose their gods on us (be it sexual immorality, abortion, etc.) or we arm ourselves with knowledge of what God says about all of these issues and influence morality with the only moral standard that exists: the Word of God.
“And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.“
For decades now, we have heard just about everything regarding climate change and that big, ole’, mean chemical compound known as “CO2” (that’s not actually mean at all and is necessary for life on Earth). Everyone from climate “scientists” to politicians to celebrities to fake news reporters have cried about rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere and constantly demand that people living in the Western World give up our liberties and our rights to the government in order to “fight” climate change (yeah, still haven’t heard a solid argument as to why we should do that or how it would actually solve anything. It’s very obviously a communist ploy).
That particular chemical compound, though necessary for life on Earth, has been so demonized that people demand we reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to 0% (which would kill us) or as close to it as possible. But climate scientists have, for a couple of years now, noted that CO2 is rather negligible when it comes to global warming.
In 2015, a seminal paper was published in Geophysical Research Letters that said that a rising concentration of CO2 in Antarctica causes a negative greenhouse effect aka cooling.
“For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHETES is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling. Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive.”
So back in 2015, a couple of scientists were saying that CO2 was actually causing COOLING rather than warming, at least in the southern hemisphere. They also acknowledged that such emissions were pretty “weak” in both hemispheres.
So then why did Greta Thunberg yell at a bunch of white people that they were destroying the climate when CO2 hasn’t actually been shown to be even all that relevant when it comes to climate change? The entire “fight” regarding climate change revolves around reducing CO2 emissions. Multiple parts of the Green New Deal include doing exactly that, and yet, since at least 2015, there are scientists that argue that CO2 was pretty “weak”, at least in the poles?
But regardless of the phoniness of the entire climate change cult, let’s move on to another piece of news (that is actually not all that new) that might intrigue us to some extent:
“Carbon dioxide: sometimes it is a cooling gas, sometimes a warming gas,” according to a research article from 2018.
Here’s what the abstract of the article says: “The laws of physics, namely the gas laws, were applied to the gases in the atmosphere that act as ideal gases. The results show that as air temperature increases from winter to summer, CO2 is a cooling gas and from summer to winter, it is a warming gas regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. This is contrary to the commonly held belief that CO2 always warms the atmosphere… The effect of CO2 methane and the trace gases on atmospheric temperature and climate change is so small as to be negligible.”
The actual paper also states: “… it is the gas laws that cause CO2 concentration in dry air to fall by 26 ppmv from 403 to 377 ppmv from January to August… from January 1 to July 1 at Hamburg, the temperature rises 19°C… CO2 concentration falls 26 ppmv… water vapour rises by 9033 ppmv… and the H2O/CO2 ratio raises 25.4 units. This is conclusive evidence that from winter to summer, the warming by water vapor counteracts the small cooling by CO2. Conversely, from summer to winter, the warming effect of CO2 tends to warm the air as water vapor is cooling it. But the effects by CO2 each time are so small as to be negligible. This evidence comes to light because the gas laws show that in the atmosphere, CO2 concentration falls as temperature rises.”
Do you know what we call it here in Normalville when it gets hotter during the earlier parts of the year, particularly until mid-summer, and then it gets colder later in the year, particularly around winter? THE CHANGING SEASONS!
Revisiting some 3rd grade astronomy, the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical pattern. The amount of time it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun is roughly 365 days, which tends to make up 1 year (it’s a little more complex than that, but let’s keep things simple for the sake of the argument). In that time, the Earth spins on its own axis and it tends to be kind of tilted (if you look at a globe, it’s made that way because that’s roughly how the Earth actually is spinning in space).
In the northern hemisphere at this present time, November of 2019, it’s autumn, or fall and it will be this way until December 21st, which is the first day of winter. In the southern hemisphere, however, it is spring, so it’s warmer.
The reason it’s this way is because of the tilting of the Earth in its revolution around the Sun. When it’s the summer months in the northern atmosphere, the northern hemisphere is “facing” the Sun, if you will. It’s tilted towards its direction. When it’s winter, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from it. This also causes the day to be longer or shorter depending on the point of the year.
As a result of this tilting of the Earth, one hemisphere receives more sunlight than the other and therefore, receives warmer temperatures than the other. It gets colder during the fall and winter seasons and warmer during the spring and summer seasons.
How exactly has it taken these people this long to figure it out? And even then, I’m not entirely sure they actually know this (or at least, they act like it’s a non-factor).
That last paragraph of the recent research paper I quoted talks about what tends to happen during the different seasons, albeit from the perspective of carbon dioxide. The claim here is that carbon dioxide acts as a cooling gas during the warmer months and as a warming gas during the colder ones. And that may be so – I am not one to be able to definitively argue solidly against that – but the paper also mentions that the effect of the gas is so weak as to be negligible, so I don’t know how they don’t connect the dots and say “maybe it’s this way because of WHAT WE LEARNED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ABOUT THE CHANGING SEASONS!”
And I get that a scientific paper can’t be so bland as to have such a conclusion using such simple words, but that is the conclusion people should be reaching! When we find that we have record highs during summer and record lows during winter, it’s not because of global warming or global cooling. It’s not because of our cars or our air conditioners or our planes or our cows. It’s not because of anything we are inherently doing or not doing to the planet. It’s because of the way God created the planet.
God knows what He is doing and knew perfectly well what was necessary for a planet to be able to harbor life naturally. He CREATED NATURE, after all. He created the planets, the stars, the galaxies and the entire universe, known and unknown. He knows how it all works and goes together, the intricacies of everything as minute as subatomic particles to the vast universe itself and all that exists.
It’s ridiculous that there have to be scientific papers looking into the activity of carbon dioxide to discover something we have known for a very long time about the planet and its seasonal behavior. Even the pilgrims understood the concept of growing your food for the winter. Even animals like bears, squirrels and other animals that hibernate understand the concept of stocking up resources for winter. Even the earliest of humans understood that when it got cold, you needed to put on some more clothes and when it got hot, you needed to wear less clothing or maintain cooler temperatures for yourself.
Even if they didn’t necessarily understand the concept of seasons, they still understood the concept of “it gets hot during a period of the year and cold during a different one”.
And considering what the paper says regarding carbon dioxide, I’d say that it has so little relevance as to require a different approach to the entire field. If CO2 is so negligible and weak, why are people even talking about it as though it’s Earth’s version of cancer? Shouldn’t people be a little more aware of the fact that it just gets hot during the summer months and cold during the winter months?
Rhetorical questions, of course, as we know the reason the climate change cult is even a thing. It’s not about facts or science. Even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has admitted that this ought to be considered more of a religion than a science. This is about feelings and believing in something.
Whereas Christians find salvation in Christ, climate cultists find “salvation” in government. They believe the government is capable of “defeating” climate change and that it should have as much power and resources as possible in order to do that. If along the way, all our civil and constitutional rights and liberties are stripped away, then that is an acceptable sacrifice in exchange for “security” against climate change.
Common sense like what I was using in this article makes no difference to these people. In fact, attempting to use common sense like this will brand you a “denier” and a physical threat to people’s safety. The Left is at the point where they think the very existence of dissenters is a threat to their well-being.
But reality has to bite them in the rear sooner or later. Either they wake up and recognize the truth of the Gospel or they stay asleep believing the falsehoods of the climate cult.
2 Timothy 4:3
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.”
With the impeachment hearings trotting out nothing for the Democrats or the fake news media to be able to stick with to attack Trump (they went from Quid Pro Quo to bribery to not letting a foreigner into the WH and are circling back to Quid Pro Quo with Sondland, but that’s not working out either), the Democrats and the fake news media are desperate to find something, ANYTHING, to try and hit Trump with, considering how poorly this impeachment sham is going for them.
In comes a U.N. report that tries to utterly tear into the Trump administration. According to the AFP, who wrote a story on the report, “more than 100,000 children are currently being held in migration-related detention in the United States, often in violation of international law, the UN said Monday.”
NPR also ran with the story, claiming that the Trump administration “is still holding more than 100,000 children in migration-related detention.”
This story was also circulated among Democrats, with U.S. Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) tweeting: “The over 100,000 kids in immigration-related custody are kids the Trump administration has separated from their families, detained in cages, & denied basic necessities & medical care. We can’t let this inhumane treatment continue at any scale.”
Certainly, words of condemnation. And she was far from alone. The Democratic Coalition shared the article and tweeted: “Our National Shame: The United Nations has condemned the United States for having the world’s highest rate of children in detention. #KeepFamiliesTogether #ShitholePresident.”
By the way, I didn’t censor that curse word so you would fully get what it is these people think of President Trump.
In any case, the DNC War Room also tweeted: “This is a disgusting result of Trump’s family separation policies – pushed by Stephen Miller who has cited white nationalist propaganda in promoting his views. It’s also, apparently, a violation of a U.N. treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Ooooh, seems pretty bad. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) also tweeted: “#1 is a slot you want to see… except for when it’s a worldwide ranking of detained children. Not only is it wrong & inhuman to endanger the lives of over 100,000 children in immigration-related custody, but it VIOLATES international law.” In a tweet replying to herself, Rep. Velazquez continued: “I urge each & every member of our #NY7 community to read up & speak out bc this is no mistake – this is a direct result of the Trump admin’s racist, anti-immigrant agenda. This is shameful!”
The Latino Victory US, an open borders Leftist organization, echoed Rep. Velazquez’ sentiments: “The United States of America – the richest & most powerful country on the planet – has the world’s highest rate of detained children. Let that sink in. Make no mistake, this is not an accident. This is a direct result of Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.”
My God, what is Trump to do?! He is detaining children, holding them hostage and reportedly treating them inhumanely! Oh God! OH GOD WHAT ARE WE TO… hey, is that the author of the U.N. report? What’s he doing? Is he… is he saying that the numbers in the report aren’t accurate for 2018, but are actually from 2015, when Obama was president? Huh.
Yep, the AFP, upon finding out about it, tweeted the following: “AFP is withdrawing this story. The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015. We will delete the story.”
Wait, is it not newsworthy anymore that the U.S. was holding so many children in detention now? I get that the story is not new because the figures aren’t new, but the message of the story was supposed to be to take care of migrant children and be humane towards them, right? Or was it just supposed to be a “gotcha” for the Trump administration?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions because we already know the answer: the fake news media is in collusion with the Deep State to take down Trump and this has been the case since even before Trump won the election.
Reuters similarly deleted their story upon this revelation, Rep. Grace Meng also seemingly deleted her tweet about it, as did the Democratic Coalition upon discovering that, if they had kept the tweet up, they would’ve inadvertently been calling President Obama a “#ShitholePresident”. But you have to ask, if Trump would’ve been considered that bad word if he had done that, why isn’t Obama being considered the “s**thole president”? He’s the one that did it.
Remember all those pictures of kids locked up in cages (like the one above) that the fake news media, like with this story, tried to pass off as Trump’s doing until it was found out that the pictures were from 2014, so it was during Obama’s tenure? Why doesn’t Obama, who was the one that actually kept these kids in these conditions and apparently in violation of international law, get the ire that Trump was getting when these idiots thought it was him?
Again, rhetorical questions, all of them. Rep. Grace Meng said that the Trump administration was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic “necessities & medical care”. Quite a horrible thing had it been Trump who did it, but all of a sudden, it doesn’t matter because it was actually Obama who was separating families, detaining kids in cages and denying them basic necessities and medical care?
Was it only “Our National Shame” when it was thought that Trump was keeping these kids in cages but it wasn’t “Our National Shame” when Obama was the one actually doing it? And surely, one cannot blame Trump’s “family-separation policies” when Obama was the one separating the families. Furthermore, apparently it was only “wrong” and “inhuman” to “endanger” the lives of 100,000 children when they thought Trump was doing it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it wasn’t “wrong”, “inhuman” or “endangering” the lives of children.
Apparently, it’s only racist if they think Trump did it, but when Obama was actually doing it, it was perfectly fine. These are all things that the people I mentioned earlier charged Trump with. They said he was endangering kids’ lives, that it was racist, that it was wrong, that it was shameful, that he was denying them basic human rights, and they have no problem levying these false charges against Trump, but the minute they find out Obama was actually the one whom they should be levying these charges, they keep utterly quiet.
For the record, I have come around to supporting the “family separation” policies (as the Left calls them) because these “families”, more often than not, are not actually families but minors being accompanied by total strangers hoping to enter the country with essentially a free ticket. Notice how throughout the story, any point where I said “oohh, seems bad” was entirely sarcastic not only because I knew very well that it was actually Obama doing this, but because even if Trump actually had been the one doing this, I wouldn’t have minded.
Better to keep these kids separated from total strangers who could easily abuse them or sell them off to slavery than keep them with these strangers, running these risks, all for the sake of putting up an act of “keeping families together”.
But regardless of what I think about it, these Leftists have made their own thoughts about it plenty clearly, at least when they think it was Trump. When they think it’s Trump, just about every bad story that can come out is pushed to its extreme to attempt to make him suffer for it. But one comes to find that just about every charge they levy against Trump is actually something that Obama did.
Collusion to rig an election? Obama weaponized the intel community to spy on the Trump campaign and sought the services of Ukraine.
Family separation at the border? Obama kept kids in these cages.
Quid Pro Quo? Biden, with Obama’s blessing, threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a top prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.
OBAMA was the one who was separating families at the border, denying them basic necessities and medical care. OBAMA’S administration is what “Our National Shame” was. OBAMA was the “s**thole president”. OBAMA was the one doing what these people considered wrong. But the minute they find out the truth, they go silent. It wasn’t wrong if OBAMA was doing it.
It’s utterly twisted and the reason as to why I cannot take these fools seriously when they try to claim moral superiority on any and every issue. They are completely IMMORAL to the bone.
To them, right and wrong are entirely subjective. Separating families is wrong when Trump does it but right when Obama does it. Colluding to rig an election is wrong if Trump is accused of doing it but perfectly legitimate when Obama does it. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds and it’s pathetic.
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
Papal infallibility is a dogma defined by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th Century during the Vatican 1 Council held in 1869-1870. Since then, Roman Catholics around the world have accepted this dogma as absolute truth. The dogma states that when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” (about morals or faith) Roman Catholics are to follow his words as if it was God talking. Unfortunately, man is fallible by nature and then, one day, you get a Pope like Francis who actually wants to re-open the Bible, so to speak, to add an 11th commandment that could sound like this: “Thou Shalt Not Sin Against The Environment”.
Pope Francis said on Friday, November 15th, “We have to introduce―we are thinking about it―to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the sin against ecology, the 'ecological sin' against our common home, because a duty is at stake," in a speech he gave to the 20th World Congress of the International Association of Penal Law in Rome. Some Roman Catholic scholars say that, while it’s impossible to sin against inanimate objects, just against God and those created in His image, they do insist that abusing the environment is a sin against God.
“Catholic author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski told LifeSiteNews that when human beings abuse creation, they are sinning against God or their fellow man, not the earth. ‘There is no possible sin against planet Earth,’ Kwasniewski said. ‘All sins are ultimately against God or those who are in God's image. As all theologians have explained prior to the post-conciliar decline of theology, when we abuse the natural world or animals or plants, we are sinning against God their creator, who gave them to us to use for the right purposes and in accordance with their nature and ours,’ he continued. “
I know that, unless you’re a student of the Bible, what Dr. Kwasniewski says seems to make sense: if abusing the environment is a sin against God, wouldn’t it seem right to add another sin to the list of “you shall not’s”?
Let’s think about this for a moment: if it is true that abusing the environment is a sin against God, according to Dr. Kwasniewski, why do we need another sin? Where does Dr. Kwasniewski get the idea that abusing the environment is a sin? That it’s immoral? You would think he gets it from the Bible, correct?
Yes, my friend, he gets it from the Bible.
There are probably more than 100 Bible verses that talk about the environment, one way or the other. Here are a few examples:
Numbers 35:33-34: “You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”
Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”
Genesis 1:26-28: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”
Psalm 24:1: “A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,”
Deuteronomy 20:19: “’When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?’”
Job 12:7-10: “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.”
Matthew 6:26: “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
Deuteronomy 10:14: “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.”
Leviticus 25:23-24: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.”
The bottomline is that this is what the Bible says:
Now, why would we need yet another “sin” when the Bible is clear that the mandate is for us to care for the Earth?
The answer is, naturally, we don’t. The Bible is quite comprehensive and all the commandments have been spelled out. Besides, the Bible is the Word of God, not the word of the Pope. God has spoken through His written word, which is infallible. Man has no authority to add anything to the Bible. The Bible is God-breathed, therefore “adding a sin” by the Pope is NOT binding, because the New Testament, or the New Covenant, was sealed by God Himself. The Pope is not God. He’s a creature. Just like you and me.
There are many issues with this Pope and with the Roman dogma. This is a denomination that teaches that membership to the Roman Catholic Church saves – trust is, therefore, put in the Church itself rather than in Jesus Christ. Since the Pope is the head of the Church, Roman Catholics believe he’s the absolute authority placed by God, and equate him to a semi-god. This is, of course, a violation of the first commandment “You shall have no other gods but me”.
Are we commanded to be good stewards of the planet? Yes. Do we need to add anything to the Bible? No. Not just because the Bible is clear, but because no CREATURE has the authority to add anything to what the CREATOR has already revealed.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!”
A little over a week ago, I wrote an article detailing how phony and fake a “climate emergency” statement was because it claimed that 11,000 scientists had signed on to it, pointing out how only 1% of those “scientists” were actual climate scientists and the rest were either scientists of a different field and therefore were not entirely trustworthy on the issue of climate change or were simply not scientists or NOT EVEN REAL PEOPLE, with Mickey Mouse and Professor Dumbledore having “signed” the statement. What that article has in common with today’s topic is in the theme of fictitious, phony crap.
You see, recently, mayor of South Bend Indiana and 2020 Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg boasted having a list of 400 “black” people from South Carolina endorsing his “Douglass Plan”, a plan with the supposed aim of helping black people in America.
They boasted about how “hundreds of South Carolinians” were supporting the plan (and made it vague enough to make it look like they subsequently supported Mayor Pete) but there are a number of problems here.
First of all, 42% of the list of “black supporters” are white. The list doesn’t make it easy to find people who actually supported the plan, given that it only puts people’s names in the list and many have fairly common names like “James Wilson” or “Mary Williams”. But of the total 422 names on the list, only 297 are on South Carolina’s voter file. Of those that can be checked in the voter file, 184 of them are listed as “white”, so at least 42% of the entire list is white and 62% of the voter file list is white.
This is extremely similar in nature to what I was talking about before with the climate “emergency” statement. Now, I don’t know if Mickey Mouse is also listed as endorsing the “Douglass Plan”, but a good number of the people listed in the “black” supporters of the Plan are not black.
Second of all, it’s likely that not everyone in that list actually supports the Plan. State Rep. Ivory Thigpen is a Democrat from the state of South Carolina and is listed as one of three prominent endorsers of the “Douglass Plan”. So are Columbia City Councilmember Tameika Devine and SC Democrat Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero. All three of them are listed as prominent endorsers of Mayor Pete’s plan, but upon learning about it, they all said they did not endorse it or him.
Councilmember Devine said that she endorsed the plan, but the e-mail was written in a way that made it look like she endorsed Buttigieg, which she did not. “Clearly from the number of calls I received about my endorsement, I think the way they put it out there wasn’t clear, that it was an endorsement of the plan, and that may have been intentionally vague. I’m political, I know how that works… I do think they probably put it out there thinking people wouldn’t read the fine print or wouldn’t look at the details or even contact the people and say, ‘Hey, you’re endorsing Mayor Pete?’”
State Rep. Thigpen, whom Councilwoman Devine says is a supporter of Mayor Pete, has actually endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for President and said that it was “alarming” that his name would be shown there, because while he had made contact with the campaign, he thought he had made it perfectly clear to them that Crazy Bernie was his guy and was not supporting or endorsing Mayor Pete or his plan.
Dem Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero also said that he did not support the mayor’s plan nor the mayor himself: “I never endorsed that plan. I don’t know how my name got on there…”. Cordero explained to The Intercept that he had asked the Buttigieg campaign questions regarding the Plan, such as who drafted the plan and if black people were involved in the creating of the plan, going along the line of thinking that black people should know best what it was that a plan should have to help black people in America, but that ultimately, he did not come to the decision to endorse it.
But regardless, all of them had some sort of issue or another with Mayor Pete’s e-mail and boasting of supposed black support for his campaign as a result of this Plan. The fact that some of them didn’t even know they were “endorsing” the plan brings me to my next and final point:
There was an “opt-out” option in the endorsement, not an “opt-in”, meaning that you automatically are registered as an endorser and supporter if you don’t read through the fine print and specifically reach out to the campaign to tell them you do not endorse the Plan.
This is, interestingly enough, a similar tactic to what Big Unions use to rob employees. The National Right To Work Foundation has an article about this, detailing a complaint an employee of United Airlines had against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) for requiring that he “opt-out” of paying union dues and fees despite the fact that he was not a member of the union and the union used sketchy tactics of forcing people to respond with little time about not wanting to have their paychecks deducted in “support” of the union.
It’s nothing short of Soviet-style theft and the National Right To Work Foundation is helping the United Airlines employee to sue the union giant for violating Supreme Court precedent regarding union dues and fees and for violating the man’s First Amendment rights afforded to him by the Constitution of the United States.
And this is the tactic the Buttigieg campaign opted to use (pun intended). If you’ve been contacted by the campaign about the Plan, you automatically endorse it unless you specifically tell them you don’t endorse it. And no indication is made that this is how it works, so many people are left officially “endorsing” the plan when they had not actually intended to do so.
I could only imagine the firestorm that would befall the Trump campaign if they employed similar tactics. And while many are, rightfully, bashing Mayor Pete for such sketchy tactics, others, such as The Washington Post, report that “Buttigieg persuaded hundreds of prominent black South Carolinians to sign onto the plan even if they are not supporting Buttigieg himself.”
The lie in this fake news article becomes very clear when you know the truth. Buttigieg FORCED hundreds of South Carolinians, not all of whom are black, to sign on to the plan that makes it look like they are supporting Mayor Pete and the three prominent black South Carolinians on the list either had a problem with the messaging or did not support either the plan or the mayor.
It’s extremely sketchy and very risky, considering he has virtually zero support among black people across the country, particularly in South Carolina. And it blew up on the guy’s face because of how obvious a farce the whole thing was.
Not that I expect anything less from someone who lies about being a Christian.
“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.”
It might be rather annoying for some people to read headline after headline regarding a natural disaster being blamed on climate change, but it’s personally become a hobby for me to look at them and take some enjoyment out of it (not because of the people affected by it, of course, as that is always the tragic part of the story, but because of the ridiculous crap these unhinged Leftists have to say about it).
And most recently, we have Venice, Italy being hit with what is being considered the worst flood in 50 years.
From the AP: “The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage. The water reached 1.87 meters (6.14 feet) above average sea level Tuesday, the second-highest level ever recorded in the city and just 7 centimeters (2.5 inches) lower than the historic 1966 flood. Another wave of exceptionally high water followed Wednesday.”
The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, said: “Venice is on its knees. St. Mark’s Basilica has sustained serious damage, like the entire city and its islands.”
Suffice to say, many fake news sites (and the mayor himself) are doing their best to blame this on climate change. However, there are a number of problems with this.
First of all, as previously established, this isn’t the first time Venice has flooded like this. Venice itself is a city that is permanently flooded. It’s been like this for centuries. The Wikipedia page on Venice itself mentions that 600 years ago, Venetians “protected themselves from land-based attacks by diverting all the major rivers flowing into the lagoon and thus preventing sediment from filling the area around the city. This created an ever-deeper lagoon environment.” The page also notes that in 1608, Venice produced one of the earliest examples of paper currency in order to offset the cost of flood relief.
Now, I know that Wikipedia is not necessarily the most factual of sites to use, but I cannot find information like this elsewhere that goes into that sort of detail. But even if literally none of that is true, there is no denying the second point:
Just last year, fake news sites were blaming climate change on the Venetian canals RUNNING DRY. From the U.K. Express: “Where’s the water GON-DOLA? Venice’s iconic canals run DRY after weeks without rain.” So it’s climate change when the city overfloods and it’s also climate change when the canals dry up?
Thirdly, Venice tends to get floods every year, between the seasons of autumn and spring. The Guardian has an article, though a tad outdated by this point, that shows pictures of various floods in Venice’s recent existence. They show floods from November of 1927, December of 1933, March of 1964, February of 1974, 1980 (no month given), November of 1996, November of 2001, October of 2006, January of 2010, November of 2011, October of 2012, and November of 2012 (article was published in 2015, so it doesn’t go much further than that).
And even then, those aren’t all the floods the city has endured, as previously mentioned, with the city’s worst flooding having occurred in 1966.
But the point I’m trying to make here is that you cannot seriously suggest that flooding that was a regular occurrence since at least the 1600s, if going by the Wikipedia article, or at least the 1800s (there is a painting from Vincenzo Chilone that shows a flood in 1825) could in any way be due to climate change.
One common theme across all of the fake news articles blaming climate change is that they specifically blame rising sea levels for the floods. But there is a major problem with that. According to the NOAA, sea levels are rising at 1/8th of an inch per year, or 3.175mm per year. But multiple studies suggest that Venice is sinking at a rate of 1-2mm per year, slower than the average that NOAA gives us.
Meaning that rising sea levels cannot be attributed as the culprit of this. Now, I understand that averages don’t necessarily reflect individual cases. However, if sea levels rising are to be blamed, this is something we have to discuss. Venice, a city that is perpetually underwater with canals (that sometimes dry up), is sinking at a lower rate than these Leftists claim the rest of the world is. How exactly does that make sense? If the entire world is at risk due to rising sea levels (which I challenge because the ice caps aren’t melting and even if they were, the water would remain roughly where it is), wouldn’t Venice have to be at extreme risk and shouldn’t the average sinking rate for Venice itself have to be considerably higher than the alleged global average?
Even if you think I’m wrong or I make no sense here, there is no denying the utter hypocrisy the fake news media constantly shows. When it gets particularly hot, they blame climate change. When it gets particularly cold, they blame climate change. When there’s a hurricane, they blame climate change to the point they ridiculously claim there were no hurricanes before climate change “began”. When there is a forest fire in California, they blame climate change instead of the dangerous and idiotic Leftist policies that endanger the State, the wildlife, the forest and the citizens. When there is a flooding in a city that is perpetually flooded, they blame climate change. When the canals in Venice dry up instead of continuing to flood, they blame climate change.
Basically, if LITERALLY ANYTHING AT ALL HAPPENS, it’s climate change’s fault. Lost your job? Climate change. Significant other cheated on you? Climate change. Got a flat tire? Climate change. These people are like Mr. Turner blaming Dinkleberg for everything, only sadder because that is a cartoon and this is real life.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
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...