The Never Trumper and liberal would look at that headline and believe that I have given up on Trump or the fight to ensure Biden and the Democrats do not steal this election. They will think I am a pro-Trumper who is looking at the situation and thinks it is so bleak that I have no other choice but to pray to God for a miracle. Make no mistake: praying to God is our FIRST choice, not our last.
 
It is not rare for soldiers to pray to God before they set off to battle. They do so, not because they are at their wits end and can only pray for a miracle. They do so because they believe God will deliver them from the present darkness of war. They do so because they believe God will protect them from the enemy. They do so because they are believers first and soldiers second. They do so because they know the awesome power of the Lord.
 
Read the following written prayer from a Russian soldier during World War II:
 
“O God, hear me! Not once in my life have I ever spoken to you, but today I feel the urge to make you an act of worship. You know that even from my infancy they always told me that you didn’t exist… I, stupid, believed them. I had never marveled at your great works. But tonight I looked up from out of a shell hole at the heaven of stars above me! And fascinated by their brilliant magnificence. All at once I understood how terrible the deception…”
 
“I don’t know, O God, if you will give me your hand. But I say this to you, and you understand. Isn’t it strange, that in the midst of a terrible inferno, the light should appear to me and I should have discovered you? Beyond this I have nothing to say to you. I am happy just because I have known you. At midnight we must attack, but I have no fear, you are looking out for us.”
 
“It is the signal. I have to go. It was wonderful to be with you. I want also to tell you, and you know it, that the battle will be hard: it could be that, in this very night, I’ll come to knock at your door. And even though up to now I haven’t been your friend, when I come, will you let me come in? But what’s this? Am I crying? My Lord God, you see what has happened: only now I’ve begun to see clearly… Farewell, my God, I am going. It’s scarcely possible that I’ll return. Strange; Death now has no fear for me.”
 
Realize the magnitude of such a prayer. Children in the Soviet Union were taught not to believe in God. Teachers would often, under order of the Soviet school systems, organize an exercise where children would be given two potted plants: one which they would water themselves and take care of themselves, and another which “would be left up to God to take care of”. The point of the exercise was to “prove” that God didn’t exist because the plant that would not get watered or put under the sun or overall taken care of would die, and the one that the children took care of would live.

So, it is not surprising that a Russian soldier in the midst of the Second World War would have spent much of his young life not having known God at all. And even still, it is clear to me, through reading that prayer, that the Holy Spirit came down upon him and his eyes were opened to the Lord. That soldier, as he had predicted, would die in that battle. But he did not despair at the thought. He felt tranquil, as he expressed in the end of the prayer.
 
Prayer to God may have been among his last actions, but it was not out of desperation for hope of making it out of there. Again, he demonstrated he was not afraid of meeting his end there. Similarly, those who support and have voted for Trump, whether twice now or for the first time this election, we do not hope in God because He is our last hope or choice; He is our ONLY hope and choice.
 
Shall we have hope in an imperfect system (which is still pretty good, all things considered) created by imperfect men? Shall we have hope in even Trump himself or his legal team? I’m not saying that because I think they will fail; I say that because I believe God will let them succeed and has the power to do so. I say that because, at the end of the day, whether we are talking about war, a rigged election, or whatever else, we can truly do nothing more than to put all our trust, faith and hope in the One who is Master of All.
 
We see what we have to face. Many of us saw much of that during the recent State Senate hearing in Philadelphia.
 
The State of Pennsylvania sent out 1.8 million mail-in ballots and received 2.5 million. A clear sign of a rigged election. Republican poll watchers were not allowed to watch the polls, and even Philadelphia sheriffs didn’t allow them to go in, despite them having a judge’s order to be allowed to watch the polls. Another clear sign of a rigged election. At one point, the vote count received 570k votes going to Biden and only 3,200 going to Trump. Yet another sign of a rigged election.
 
There is plenty more, but also keep in mind that this was JUST in the State of Pennsylvania. There are other states like Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and Michigan to consider, and even then, I doubt those are the only states where massive irregularities occurred.
 
Did you know that Biden severely underperformed Hillary Clinton everywhere in the country, with just about every demographic, except in four key cities? The only places where Biden did “better” were Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia, all of which are in states where some of the worst irregularities occurred and which are being challenged (Arizona is another state where such irregularities occurred, but no particular city “carried the day” for Biden there).
 
So we know what we are faced with. On the natural level, there are plenty of reasons to be worried. However, we do not serve a natural god, we serve a supernatural God. Absolutely none of this is a surprise to Him. He knows the exact number of votes stolen, illegally thrown away, illegally counted, etc.
 
We likely will never know the extent to which Democrats have been trying to steal this election (and I suspect this is far from the only election they have tried to steal, given Biden’s comments about his “voter fraud operation” and how “you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this”, pointing to the possibility of Obama having stolen at least one of his elections, most likely 2012). However, what is important is to keep them from stealing this one, because if we are successful in doing that, I believe it will serve as a wake-up call to many Republicans (not the establishment ones) about election security.
 
I’ve said this before but I will repeat it here: it’s possible that this is all a blessing in disguise. Had Trump won in a massive landslide like I originally hoped he would, the topic of election security and fraud would not have been a priority. Sure, a Trump landslide would have been evidence that it clearly didn’t work, but consider that Trump is very much unlike other Republicans in many regards. He has the kind of pull many other Republicans do not. He is the most popular Republican president and candidate since Ronald Reagan. Had he won in a massive landslide and nothing was done about election security and defeating the Democrat fraud operations, they would have taken over in 2024 very easily, and the fears and worries we have today would become guaranteed realities four years from now.
 
If Trump succeeds, as I believe God will lead him to do, this close brush with fraud victimization will lead him to do something about the election. Keep in mind, also, that he sought to secure this election from foreign influence JUST because of the allegations made against him that he colluded with Russia.
 
If he is willing to implement policies which secure the elections from foreign influences just because of what people say about him, don’t you think he will be more willing to implement policies which secure the elections from domestic influences because of how close he was to being cheated out of re-election?
 
Election security and fighting fraud are now unmistakably a part of the Make America Great Again agenda, because without it, Democrats will have a much easier time stealing all future elections wherever they need them, with varying degrees of success in some places, at least.
 
There will be no Red Wave in 2022 if we don’t keep this election from being stolen by the Democrats. But again, despite all our earthly trials and tribulations, we must place our faith and trust, first and only, in the Lord.
 
Just as He hardened Pharaoh’s heart, He can also soften the hearts of our enemies. He can guide even wicked people to righteousness. Consider that before the Apostle Paul was an apostle or a Christian, he was the biggest helper of the Roman Empire in persecuting and hunting down those who walked with Christ.
 
If Christ can cause Saul of Tarsus to have a change of heart and become His follower, and further to writing about half of the New Testament and being one of the most influential apostles of the 12, God can make even people like Justice Roberts to do the right thing (and yes, I am aware of how he voted in a recent SCOTUS case regarding Cuomo’s unconstitutional shuttering of religious services, but that case does not go against the truth that God can guide Roberts’ steps away from wickedness and evil).
 
So do not put your hope in Trump, or his legal team, or the justice system of the United States. Rather, put your hope in the One who is above all things, who created all things, and who is Master over all things. Put your faith and trust and hope in the One who cannot be cheated, who cannot be victimized, and who knows the plans of the wicked and laughs at them.
 
Put your hope in God first and only.
 
Romans 12:12
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”

​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.
​
Happy Thanksgiving!

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction"

Did we really need a study to know that this was the case? Did we not learn at some point during school that meat provides protein and calcium? Is this another piece of factual information we all learned in school that has gone by the way-side because the topic of EATING FOOD has become so politicized and many on the Left prefer the, frankly, self-destructive diet of veganism?
 
Maybe, but people’s desire to change the meaning of words or erase factual evidence does not mean that they can actually change reality. The reality is that there is no man-made climate change, just a natural one. The reality is that people can only be male or female because of XY and XX chromosomes, respectively. And the reality is that meat carries protein and calcium, as well as other things which help people to grow stronger.
 
And yet, it seemingly is necessary that a study be published to recognize that fact (and it still will be pushed back by those who do not find such facts to be comfortable or agreeable).
 
A recent Oxford University study finds that vegans are 43% more likely to suffer from bone fractures than do people who eat meat.
 
BMC Medicine published the research earlier this week, and the research itself was rather expansive, with researchers following 55,000 meat-eaters, vegetarians, pescatarians (people who eat fish), and vegans (different from vegetarians in that they will not consume any product which comes from animals, such as milk, cheese, eggs, etc.) for 18 years each, on average.
 
According to Breitbart News: “While vegetarians and pescatarians were 25 per cent more likely to suffer broken hips than meat-eaters, vegans were more than 2.3 times likely to experience the injury.”
 
The lead author of the study, Oxford’s Tammy Tong, pointed out the obvious, that this is a result of vegans receiving a lower intake of calcium and protein, and said: “We found that vegans had a higher risk of total fractures, which resulted in close to 20 more cases per 1,000 people over a ten-year period compared to people who ate meat.”
 
Breitbart News also points to another study, which was released earlier in November, by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany, which “found that one-third of vegans assessed had a ‘markedly lower’ amount of iodine, at levels that the World Health Organization (WHO) would consider a ‘severe deficiency.’”
 
Opinions about the dumpster fire of an organization that the WHO is aside, iodine deficiency is no joke. If that study is correct, one-third of vegans are at risk of damaging their thyroid gland, which needs iodine to make hormones, according to WebMD. Without enough iodine, the thyroid gland risks getting enlarged, and lower levels of thyroid hormones can be pretty bad for women, as it can cause them to stop ovulating.
 
“Iodine deficiency can also lead to an autoimmune disease of the thyroid and may increase the risk of getting thyroid cancer. Some researchers think that iodine deficiency might also increase the risk of other cancers such as prostate, breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.”
 
Another study from 2019 from Utrecht University in the Netherlands suggests that vegans are prone to suffer worse hangovers than do meat-eaters because of a lack of B3 and zinc in their diets, both of which are necessary for digesting alcohol.
 
To top it all off, research presented at a farmer’s union meeting back in February of 2020 suggested that “the production of non-meat foodstuffs like tofu may be worse for the environment, and not as healthy for individuals to consume,” according to Breitbart News.
 
The reason for it is that, according to The Rothamsted Institute’s Graham McAuliffe, tofu, because it’s entirely processed, requires “more energy going into its production” and “when you correct for the fact that the protein in it is not as digestible compared to the meat-based products, you can see that it could actually have a higher global warming potential than any of the monogastric animals… To get the same amount of protein, tofu is worse.”
 
Now, like I said, there is no man-made climate change and no evidence to support the idea that it’s real, so the production of tofu is not going to cause climate change any more than a car, a boat, a plane, or whatever else Leftist lunatics will blame for climate change. However, it’s important to note that vegans, who are usually Leftists, believe in man-made climate change and as such, would have to believe that the processing of tofu, if suggested by “scientists”, would lead to man-made climate change.
 
And as such, they reach an impasse. It doesn’t mean they would necessarily have to stop being vegan for that reason (though they should for all the other health concerns), but they would necessarily have to at least reconsider their consumption of tofu, since it oh, so clearly is a massive threat to the planet and humanity itself, apparently.
 
Again, not that there is any actual sane reason to believe that, but we are not exactly dealing with sane people. These people will believe it. Or, at least, you think they would.
 
If the “science” doesn’t conform to what they want it to say, even “science” which is in quotation marks (meaning the kind that Leftists usually use to try and coerce people into doing what they want them to do), they will largely ignore it or demand that it be changed. Why else do you think that it is considered a cardinal sin for climate scientists to at all be skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing climate change? Despite it only being natural for scientists to be skeptical of data and common knowledge, as it’s part of the scientific process to test and re-test just about everything, those who do honest research and come away with the conclusion that mankind is not causing climate change get hounded and harassed and threatened for not conforming to the Leftist dogma of using science as a political weapon.
 
Those who are skeptical of man-made climate change are considered “science-deniers”. This extends even to things like the Chinese coronavirus, which entirely expectedly was politicized as soon as it became convenient for tyrants. Anyone who shares anti-mask research is purported as being someone who wants to kill people’s grandmas. Meanwhile, actual grandma-killer Gov. Andrew Cuomo receives praise and prizes for his anti-scientific, irrational and deadly actions.
 
Similarly, for someone who is vegan, they won’t care to look at data which challenges their opinions and perspectives. Such people (Leftists in general, I mean) are extremely close-minded, and any semblance of evidence or fact which challenges their desired truth (which is no truth at all, since truth cannot be subjective) is dismissed at best and considered heresy at some of its worst.
 
But despite how much they may push back on such evidence, despite how much they may want the truth to be what they define it as opposed to what it is, despite how much they claim things are X instead of the reality of Y, they cannot change said reality.
 
They cannot change the absolute fact that mankind does not cause climate change. They cannot change the absolute fact that there are only two genders. They cannot change the absolute fact that people need protein and calcium (among other things) in their diets, which are largely absent in a vegan diet. They cannot change the fact that, as a result of such absence in nutrients, those who eat such diets are not as physically healthy as those who do not each such lackluster diets.
 
The problem, however, comes in the fact that Leftists demand others think the way they do. It doesn’t really matter to them that mankind cannot cause climate change – they DEMAND that others believe we do. It doesn’t matter that there are only two genders – they DEMAND that others believe there are more. It doesn’t matter that vegan diets are, of course, bad for people – they DEMAND that others believe it is good.
 
More than that, they demand that others subscribe to the same diet. Vegan activists, for a long while now, have sought to tax meat consumption, have campaigned to make being vegan a “protected characteristic” akin to race, sex, religion, etc., and have demanded civil rights akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 insofar as they want protection from discrimination in the workplace, and have even met some amount of success.
 
Despite the risks of a vegan diet, they demand others subscribe to it. Remember what I said about iodine deficiency? Well, it also affects pregnant women, as it can lead to high blood pressure for the mother and mental retardation for the baby. This, obviously, causes generational problems. Not that vegans will care. Not that Leftists care about the destructive effects of their demands and goals.
 
For crying out loud, they demand the same brands of communism that the Soviet Union had, that China has, that Cuba has, etc. and think that people who lived/live in those countries ARE BETTER OFF as a result of communism. These are not exactly rational people we are dealing with.
 
But again, despite what they claim, despite what they want, the reality is as it is. They cannot change that because they are not God.
 
Those who choose to have a vegan diet do great harm to themselves. Not necessarily immediately, and they won’t always show it, but if the research is remotely correct, they unnecessarily increase their risk for injuries and other health risks as well.
 
Again, it’s not surprising that such a result is the case, but plenty of people refuse to see reality for what it is.
 
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo spoke at a press conference regarding the rising cases of Chinese coronavirus and opted to blame the people for “disobeying” Chinese coronavirus guidelines, after having praised them in the same press conference for “obeying” and lowering the positivity rates in the state.
 
In this bizarre rant, Cuomo said: “The good news is micro clusters work. Following the rules work. Broome County was a yellow and an orange. Broome County was a yellow zone. It’s now under control and is back to normal. Orange County was a yellow zone. A little confusing. It is now back to normal. Brooklyn was an orange zone, is being dropped to a yellow zone. So, the restrictions work and just to make it very simple, if you socially distanced and you wore a mask and you were smart, none of this would be a problem. It’s all self-imposed. It’s all self-imposed. If you didn’t eat the cheesecake, you wouldn’t have a weight problem. It’s all self-imposed.”
 
So Cuomo is not only victim-blaming for the rising COVID numbers (which don’t even really matter as much as people want you to believe. What matters is the death toll, not the number of cases) but also used a fat-shaming analogy to do so?
 
Could you imagine if a Republican governor had said the exact same thing with the exact same words and analogy? If you’re a Democrat, you get to victim-blame people and even using fat-shaming analogies to victim-blame. This is the same mentality of “if you didn’t wear the short skirt, you wouldn’t have been raped.” Perhaps to a less extreme degree, of course, but it’s still victim-blaming no matter how you slice it.
 
And by the way, like I said earlier, he previously praised New Yorkers about cases going down. “New Yorkers have done a phenomenal job and New Yorkers deserve credit because they have done a phenomenal job. And I know you guys don’t write the right context. That’s where we are 2.8, which is great news relative to everyone else. Look at the highest percentages. South Dakota, 56. Iowa, 51. Kansas, 43.”
 
So Cuomo PRAISED New Yorkers for lowering the infectivity rate before lambasting them for “not obeying” him? Which is it? Are New Yorkers deserving of praise for socially distancing and wearing a mask and “being smart”, or are they deserving of scorn for not socially distancing and not wearing a mask and not “being smart”?
 
Another problem that Cuomo faced, aside from the obvious backlash that he received because he is imposing even stricter lockdowns with zero reason to do so (not that there were any to begin with, but the reasons that the Left uses for it, such as schools being hotbeds for it, are scientifically unfound), is that the numbers he shared are not entirely accurate.
 
Later in the press conference, a reporter pointed out to Cuomo that his numbers were incorrect, saying: “Johns Hopkins has said that those numbers aren’t completely up to date and may differ from the states levels because they’re still trying to prep this formula… Those numbers don’t match the positivity ratings in states like South Dakota, for example. They do not have 56% of tests coming up positive.”
 
So, ultimately, in this press conference, Cuomo chose to lambast New Yorkers for not obeying the guidelines, praise New Yorkers for lowering positive rates (if they weren’t obeying the guidelines and this was still the result, what does that tell you about the guidelines?), and shared fake statistics regarding “rival” states, such as South Dakota, whose governor is fiercely anti-lockdown and pro-freedom?
 
Why do I even remotely sound surprised? This guy is an absolute disaster, unlike how the media portrays him. They revere him as this great leader who took control of the virus (until he didn’t), and he views himself this way, having written a book about how “successful” he was, despite the fact that the state is the premiere example as to what NOT to do at every single turn, with it having ranked as the worst state for cases and deaths for a very long time, and with him having made the order (which he now vehemently denies like a communist dictator) to send sick people to nursing and retirement homes, leading to over 6,000 deaths which are unequivocally Cuomo’s fault. The guy is a massive failure but because he took it seriously from the beginning, he is praised as a model executive.
 
What a load of crap. The guy makes as many mistakes as he did (at no point were the hospitals overwhelmed or the emergency hospital ships even used for treating patients), is responsible for killing as many people as he did (6,000 is a conservative estimate, by the way), fancies himself some sort of genius, writes a book about his “successes” in “handling the virus” (and his ego only grows as he won an Emmy, for some reason) and then proceeds to, in the same press conference, lambast and praise New Yorkers?
 
It’s so bizarre, as well. He points to lower positivity cases (which may not even be factual, but he believes they are and that’s important) across the state and in a number of counties, going so far as to calling it “good news” and then says that it’s a problem? He said “none of this would be a problem” when talking about GOOD NEWS. What is this guy on?
 
At any rate, I just hope that some way, somehow, at some point, New Yorkers can get rid of guys like Cuomo and DeBlasio, who have been abject failures for their state and city, respectively. They have jumped the gun at every turn, made horrible decisions which have ruined the lives of countless people (all-the-while enriching the 1%, whom the Left claims is their “enemy”) and have utterly failed at doing their jobs.
 
They, alongside all other communistic Democrats everywhere else in the nation, must be voted out of power asap.
 
Proverbs 16:18
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

In a very recent article, I talked about how researchers in Denmark reported that wearing a mask, even ones as good as surgical ones, did not provide any statistically significant benefits over not wearing a mask whatsoever. Well, apart from being ineffective in protecting oneself from the Chinese coronavirus, San Francisco is seeing that the masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) that people wear is causing environmental damage to the Bay Area.
 
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The Bay Area’s first rain of the season is washing away worries of wildfire and drought. But it’s also bringing a new concern: gobs of face masks flooding San Francisco Bay.”
 
“Early season storms typically sweep a slurry of debris from streets and sidewalks into rivers, creeks and bays. This year, the fall flush not only contains the usual gunk, waste experts say, but a whole lot of discarded PPE – or personal protective equipment, the detritus of the pandemic.”
 
“This influx of safety scraps into waterways is tough to quantify. However, the California Coastal Commission offered at least some idea of the volume: The agency said there was so much PPE during this year’s September volunteer coastal cleanup and inventory that it had to create a new category for masks and gloves. The items ranked between plastic cups and beverage lids on the list of the top 15 types of litter.”
 
David Lewis, executive director of the conservation group Save the Bay said: “There’s so much COVID trash. People might think it’s just a little trash and it’s unsightly, but it’s actually having an environmental impact.”
 
So, like I said, not only do masks not work as advertised, but at least in San Francisco, which has a long history of being a borderline literal “s**thole” because of all the feces and other waste in the streets, it is causing environmental damage.
 
Why push for the wearing of masks, then, if it’s causing environmental damage? We’ve been told that we “must make sacrifices” for our planet and we have to be comfortable living less comfortably for the sake of our planet, of which we only have one. So, then, shouldn’t people in San Francisco give up their masks in exchange for saving the planet?
 
Later in the article, the SF Chronicle writes: “Still, 131,000 pounds of garbage was collected during September. Cigarette butts, as usual, were the top trash item, followed by food wrappers. Newly categorized masks and gloves ranked No. 12.”
 
And that is very significant, that masks and PPE rank at number 12, because, according to Eben Schwartz, a marine debris program manager for the California Coastal Commission, “We’ve never had PPE rising anywhere near the top. And that’s remarkably high, considering we keep track of 50 items.”
 
So out of the 50 types of items that the CCC keeps track of, masks and PPE ranked at No. 12. That’s insane! It makes me question exactly what kind of poor job the residents of San Francisco are doing in disposing of their masks and other PPE equipment. But more than that, it makes me question what action San Francisco Democrats will take as a result of this.
 
Will they continue with the mask mandate crap in order to “fight the virus” or will they reverse course on it because it is causing damage to the environment (it can choke marine wildlife, according to the SF Chronicle) and they have “committed” to “fighting climate change”?
 
I think this is an easier question to answer than people think: they will go with whatever they have to to maintain the power that they have. Whatever is the more popular current topic is what they will go with, regardless of the evidence present. As a result, even despite this report and the very real harm the masks and PPE will cause to the local environment, there will be no pushing back against the masks.
 
Matter of fact, a dirtier planet means more donations and funding for their climate change orgs, so they would go against their own interests if they were to push back against the masks. They’ve never done a darn thing for the benefit of the planet, only for the benefit of their own wallets and political careers and power.
 
However, despite their expected actions here, it helps give me ammo against them. Aside from the evidence that there is no statistical advantage or benefit to wearing masks, as reported by the Danish study, we can now see that masks and PPE can be harmful for the environment. Do you think that will go over well with Democrat voters who are told this?
 
It doesn’t help that the tyrannical lockdowns and guidelines, instituted by Governor Newsom, are stifling the number of volunteers who help clean up the local environment.
 
According to the SF Chronicle: “The Coastal Commission’s well-known annual cleanup day became a monthlong affair this year because it was safer to organize smaller trash pickups over an extended period. Attendance dropped, too, from the usual 75,000 volunteers to 14,000.”
 
There are a vast number of reasons as to why lockdowns and guidelines are idiotic, but I can’t imagine it is good news for Democrat voters to hear that, apart from economic troubles which they could not give one wit about, there are also environmental troubles which come as a result of what the Democrat governor is instituting.
 
And while San Francisco is especially known for being absolutely filthy, I can’t imagine very many other places which have also instituted similar measures are much cleaner. It is possible that the Democrat governors are, through these draconian measures, harming their local environments and causing tremendous and long-term damage (as they would put it).
 
Again, I doubt they will push back against the mask usage because the Chinese coronavirus gives them a free trial of a dictatorship and because a dirtier planet will mean greater “urgency” to “fight climate change” and lead to more money funneling in, but it is ironic that this avenue they are going for runs against the supposed desires that they advertise.
 
Do not let them fool you: they don’t care about anything other than themselves. They don’t care about the environment. They don’t care about “women’s rights”. They don’t care about “people’s health and safety” from the Chinese coronavirus. This much is evident in every action they take and have thus far taken.
 
1 Corinthians 15:33
“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’”

“Wear a damn mask.” “Wear a f**king mask.” “Just wear your G-damn mask.” A lot of people have been told this for a while now from a variety of Left-wing lunatics who view “science” as gospel and “scientists” as prophets. From celebrities to regular social media idiots, we’ve been, often crudely, ordered to wear our masks.
 
Which, by the way, the more I’m told to ”wear your f**king mask,” the greater an inclination I have to tell that person to go f**k themselves. And I’m not usually one to curse at people in such a way, even online. That’s how infuriating these people are, that they have such a superiority complex that they believe they have any sort of right to tell people what to do. Not surprising that Biden and other Democrats plan/have planned to institute unconstitutional mask mandates: these people can’t help but abuse the power that they have.
 
Well, despite all the “science” and “evidence” surrounding the wearing of masks, at least when it comes to surgical masks (which are generally less effective than N95 masks), a recent Danish study has discovered that the rate of infection is about the same for a group which wore surgical masks and a group which did not wear surgical masks (or any masks).
 
Interestingly enough, The New York Times is reporting on this study, though they try their best to discredit it to some extent (which is odd because, again, they are reporting it, so why report on it if they don’t agree with it? And don’t tell me that it’s because they are a news source, because their behavior over the last four years, at least, runs contrary to that idea).
 
According to The NYT: “A new study, the first of its kind, is likely to inflame the controversy. Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.”
 
“The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers – a position endorsed last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…”
 
“About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.”
 
Now, a raging liberal might argue “but there is a noticeable difference here of 0.3%, which may not be a lot, but it’s something and every little bit helps!” Thing about that is, like the NYT pointed out, it’s statistically insignificant.
 
That 0.3%, I’m willing to bet, is well within the margin of error for the study. Part of the scientific method is to try and repeat the results, which I’m certain plenty of researchers would try to do. It could be that less people in the non-mask group get infected or it could also be that even more get infected. What I’m saying here is that wearing a mask, even a surgical one, which is generally more effective than regular cloth masks (obviously, since they are used during surgery) which most people tend to wear, does not offer any significant protection as opposed to not wearing a mask at all.
 
And insultingly, the NYT quoted a researcher in Norway who said that the study showed “there might be a symbolic effect” in wearing masks, even while she is persuaded by the study that “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for the wearers.
 
Are you kidding me? This is about symbolism now? What place does symbolism have in science? What place does how people feel about something have in science? I FEEL like my mask is going to work, so I’m encouraged to wear it even though it won’t?
 
I’m told by jackasses on Twitter to “wear my damn mask” not because it will work but because it will make THEM feel good, or it should make ME FEEL good? Biden and other Democrats want to FORCE ME to wear a mask, not because there is evidence that it works, but because of FEELINGS?!
 
Why am I surprised? Of course these people inject non-scientific garbage into science. We’ve seen, for a very long time now, how they do this. They scare children half to death about a climate “crisis” which isn’t actually a crisis and which isn’t man-made because of “feelings” (and money and power for a select few, of course). They redefine words and erase biological facts to make transgender people “feel” good and “natural” even though they are definitely not natural nor scientific.
 
So for them to make a religion which worships the idol of a mask, and passing that off as science, should not be so surprising.
 
For crying out loud, researchers from MIT and UCSF were going to publish a study about the effectiveness of masks in over a thousand counties which “saw” a decrease in hospitalizations after mask mandates were put into place, until cases began to spike (even despite those mandates), and those researchers pulled that study but did not see the connection between what they were trying to say and the reality that no, mask mandates don’t work. These are supposed “scientists” who, instead of looking at the new data (that masks don’t work and mask mandates are ineffective) and making adjustments to their hypothesis (or outright scrapping them), are still convinced that masks do work, despite the evidence that they don’t, and will seek to publish their study whenever it is more opportune.
 
The science of the Left is not science at all. It is a religion which disguises its zeal with “facts” and “evidence.” If you deny the science of the Left, you are deemed a science-denier and an anti-science ignoramus who must be re-educated (and trust me, given the opportunity, they will go this direction because Leftists always do this).
 
The “scientists” are their prophets, the “evidence” is their gospel, the masks are their idol (at least until it’s replaced with imagery of the planet or mother nature or something), and the Democrats are their Pope who will lead this religion by force and shove it down everyone’s throats.
 
Any studies which go against the grain are considered heresy, and even if reported by The NYT, they receive the treatment of “take it with a grain of salt”, while studies which show the “approved” message are to be believed entirely and without question. Scientists who factually push back against man-made climate change, or the idea of infinite genders, or any such Leftist principle, are treated as heretics and punished for their acts.
 
FYI, that study, while fairly recent, is still nearly a month old now and was rejected by multiple publications. Again, it is treated as heresy and it must be censored because it does not adhere to the approved message of the far-Left, which seeks control over facts when it comes to dealing with the China virus.
 
It is outright infuriating that the Left has successfully hijacked the realm of science and uses it with impunity to spread Leftist ideals.
 
Here’s hoping that we somehow manage to reverse course on this and will eventually utterly crush the Left in every single manner.
 
2 Peter 3:16
“As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Last month, France was attacked multiple times by radical Islamic terrorists, beginning with an attack against a teacher who was beheaded for showing cartoons mocking Mohammed, and which included an attack on a church in Nice which killed three people as well as an explosion in a French ceremony in Saudi Arabia.
 
French President Emmanuel Macron, interestingly enough, did not care to join the far-Left in apologizing to the deranged psychopaths who committed these heinous crimes for the “sin” of being “racist” or “Islamophobic” or whatever. Matter of fact, he went the opposite direction, rejecting the far-Left’s attempts at rewriting history and tearing down statues, as well as outright cracking down on Muslim extremist groups and even now, lambasting the fake news media for trying to rationalize and “legitimize” the violence France has recently seen.
 
Macron said: “When France was attacked five years ago, every nation in the world supported us. So when I see, in that context, several newspapers which I believe are from countries that share our values – journalists who write in a country that is the heir to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution – when I see them legitimizing this violence, and saying that the heart of the problem is that France is racist and Islamophobic, then I say the founding principles have been lost.”
 
“We will be inflexible when it comes to tackling racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination, and new strong decisions will be made to reinforce the egality of chances. But this noble fight is perverted when it turns into communitarianism, into a false rewriting of history.”
 
“This is unacceptable when it is picked up by separatists. I tell you very clearly tonight my dear fellow citizens, the Republic will not erase any trace or name from its history. It will not forget any of its deeds or take down any statue. What we need to do is to look all together with lucidity on all of our history and all our memory. Our relation to Africa in particular so we can build a present and a possible future from one to the other side of Mediterranean.”
 
While there are plenty of things that I dislike about Macron, particularly the fact that he is imposing more strict lockdowns in France, I can’t help but side with him on this one.
 
The fake news media, both in the U.S. and in many other countries, has a particular standard when it comes to covering Islamic terrorist attacks: never blame the attackers and, in some cases, even go so far as to blame the victims.
 
When it comes to France, the country’s “racism” and “Islamophobia” are to blame, which is blaming the victim and a roundabout way of saying “they deserved it.” They may not think that that’s what they are saying but that’s because they are so inundated in their own bullcrap that they cannot see it.
 
They ascertain that it was “justified” to behead a school teacher in France just because he showed cartoons which mocked Mohammed, which is abhorrent. They maintain that it was “justified” for the church in Nice to be attacked because of Macron’s response. They are, in effect, saying that the very clearly horrible acts are rational and just. It is, again, absolutely abhorrent.
 
All the while, they attack Christians like Madison Cawthorn for trying to convert Jews and Muslims to Christianity, as though it is an outrageous thing to try to do.
 
To the fake news media, killing someone in the name of Mohammed is fine, but trying to guide people to Christ is an unpardonable and heinous crime.
 
And you and I both know the reason for doing this at all: Islamic terrorists are a natural ally to the American Left.
 
I’ve said this before plenty of times, but it bears repeating. The American Left and radical Islamic terrorists both have in common that they wish for America to go down. They don’t want a dominant America in the least bit. They don’t want it to be the lone world superpower or even a superpower whatsoever. The American Left wants a global government, which would naturally be communistic, and for them to be a part of the global power. Radical Muslims want a global caliphate.
 
They both want the power to rule the world, and only differ in how to go about it. Of course, under the Hegelian Dialectic model, these two will eventually collide because of their relatively differing objectives. Radical Muslims are no fans of the American Left either, and consider them to be as much an enemy as the likes of Trump and pro-America conservatives.
 
For crying out loud, bin Laden had planned assassination attempts for OBAMA, who was undoubtedly the biggest ally for radical Muslims that they’d ever had in the White House (unless Biden becomes occupier-in-chief). Granted, the reason they think of Leftists as enemies is probably because Leftists have largely become very pro-war because Trump is so anti-war, and the military industrial complex makes a profit off of blowing up children in the Middle East, but still. These terrorists don’t like even the closest thing to allies that they have in the U.S.
 
But even with all of that, the American Left still views radical Islamic terrorists as allies, in some capacity, because of their shared goals. Which is why the fake news media, which is run by Leftists, is so keen on legitimizing horrific acts of violence so long as it is radical Islamic terrorists who are perpetrating them. The Muslims don’t even have to have been offended at any capacity either, the MSM will legitimize their actions because they want to keep selling the idea that Western nations, particularly the U.S., are systematically racist and, as such, invite these kinds of horrific attacks.
 
Which, again, is blaming the victim. So I can definitely sympathize with Macron here in his pushback against the Leftist media. It’s altogether rather surprising that he is even taking this approach in the first place, considering his is, himself, a Leftist, but a welcome action nonetheless.
 
There is no reason for anyone, least of all national leaders, to be apologizing to people who BEHEAD teachers who do things they find “offensive” and to go along with the message that their countries are, foundationally, racist or whatever else. All countries have had injustices in the past and still have injustice to this day. I mean, look at the U.S. right now. The Democrats are probably the closest they’ve ever come to outright violating the will of the American people and stealing the election away from the duly-re-elected president, Donald Trump. In France, Macron himself is instituting unjust lockdown measures. But to pretend as though France or the U.S. or any other Western country is inherently and systematically racist and/or Islamophobic, or altogether unjust, particularly in the face of horrific acts of violence against the people of France, is outrageous.
 
So, again, I can’t help but to side with Macron on this one. The fake news media should be ashamed of itself for their coverage of the terrorist attacks in France. They won’t be ashamed because these people are sinverguenzas, but they should be.
 
Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”

Like I said in my first article since the first day of election month (Nov. 3rd), it is pretty obvious that polls are not to be trusted. Granted, I have said this plenty more times before then, really since around 2016 when the polls showed Hillary would win that election but Trump ended up winning, but the point remains that there is no doubt in mind that polls are not in any way accurate.
 
Similarly, I suspect the same of a recent Gallup poll which shows that support for stricter gun laws are at their lowest level since 2016.
 
57% of respondents said that they would prefer stricter gun laws than what we currently have, which like I just said, is a four-year low. The record low was in 2012 when just 43% said they wanted stricter gun control laws, and was actually a point lower than the amount of people who wanted gun laws to remain as they were. It went back up to 58% following the Sandy Hook shooting and the most recent high was of 67% support back in 2018, likely following the Parkland shooting.
 
34% currently support maintaining gun laws as they are and 9% support less strict gun control laws.
 
Gallup reports that they had “been tracking the public’s views on this measure since 1990, when a record-high 78% of Americans supported stricter laws for gun sales as the nation’s crime rate was rising. A majority of Americans held that position until 2008.”
 
Support for handgun bans also remains low, at around 25%. This makes some sense because even liberals who support AR-15 bans and such express support for people owning handguns (largely because they ascertain that “you don’t need an AR-15 to defend yourself or your home,” despite the fact that AR-15s are very efficient at that).
 
However, even despite the numbers that we see throughout the poll, I can’t help but think about how every single other poll about roughly every other topic suffers from the oversampling of Democrats and undersampling of Republicans in order to skew results, and I can’t help but think about how this poll could also be suffering from the same thing.
 
While Gallup included a demographic of gun owners, with 57% saying they wanted gun laws to remain as they are and 17% want less strict gun laws, I doubt they surveyed an equal amount of gun owners and non-gun owners.
 
And I’m not just talking about this recent poll, either. I begin to call into question every other result from this poll beginning from 1990, as well as the results of just about every other poll.
 
A recent NRA-ILA article pointed out the following:
 
“Economist John Lott contends that many Americans refuse to answer or do not answer truthfully when asked about whether they own a firearm… Lott noted ‘current events influence people’s willingness to acknowledge gun ownership. After mass shootings, a sudden drop can be seen in the polling numbers.’ Wake Forest Professor of Sociology David Yamane shares Lott’s belief that inaccurate polling systematically underestimates gun ownership in the U.S. In a 2019 piece… Yamane laid out the case for systematic underreporting and provided a bevy of reasons why gun owners would be reluctant to be truthful with pollsters. The professor noted, ‘My educated guess is that the underestimate is at least 10%, that 25% would not be an unreasonable amount, and more than 25% is likely.”
 
This does not surprise me in the least bit, since I can point to many polls which likely have this happen, where a surveyor refuses to answer a question because they do not wish to receive any backlash or will actually lie for the same reasons.
 
Remember that article about the Oakland residents both exclaiming support for “defund the police” and expressing that they wish for the police force to either remain the same or increase in numbers? That poll, like I talked about in the article, is most easily and perhaps logically explained by the sort of phenomenon that likely plagues a lot of other polls including this one: people lying to pollsters about what they believe.
 
Especially in Oakland, if it’s discovered that one does not support the “defund the police” movement, they are likely to face some sort of retribution from a number of people. Likewise, I suspect plenty of people fear showing themselves to either be gun owners or be in support of gun ownership, so they lie to the pollsters about their true beliefs.
 
Since this can reasonably be expected from these recent polls, it’s hard to tell if all other polls are equally flawed. Who knows, maybe back in 1990, when the high was at 78%, that was not a true result. Maybe a lot of people had fear of retribution back then as well and did not want to express support for gun ownership or for less strict gun laws. And as Lott noted, after a shooting, the amount of people who say they own guns drops dramatically because they do not want to be persecuted against or associated with the shooter(s).
 
It’s hard to tell because the overall American culture back in 1990, as far as I can tell (given the fact that I both had not been in the U.S. yet nor anywhere in the world), was a tad more openly tolerant of right-wing beliefs, even if many did not agree with them. The idea that people could suffer backlash for having a differing opinion was not yet present, as far as I know, since cancel culture was not really around back then, all that much.
 
Again, I could be wrong about that, but the point remains that I really don’t know if any results whatsoever, from just about any time period, could be considered trustworthy. Even if people were more open with their beliefs back then because they did not fear backlash, it could still be that polls were still systematically skewed by the pollsters through oversampling of Democrats or undersampling of Republicans (or both).
 
After all, it’s not like the politics of certain people in the media were hidden even decades ago. For crying out loud, they called Al Gore “President-elect” before the state of Florida had stopped counting, just because he was a Democrat!
 
So I begin to call into question whether or not any survey result from the last few decades is even close to accurate. I wouldn’t be surprised, in the least bit, if the number of people who support less strict gun control laws is considerably higher than even the number of people who support stricter gun control laws. Considering that this year has seen some of the highest gun purchase rates in a long time, I cannot be at all inclined to believe most people support stricter gun control laws than what currently are in the books.

I can buy that Gallup saw a dip in the numbers, but I suspect the dip is far bigger than what is advertised.
 
Psalm 37:2
“For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb.”

I will be honest with you, despite the title of this article, I do not think the following poll actually is all that confusing, but I will explain my reasoning in just a moment. For now, let me talk about the poll.
 
According to a recent poll commissioned by Oakland’s Chamber of Commerce, a majority of Oakland residents support defunding the police but also either want the same amount of officers or even more officers than are currently active.
 
The poll found that 56% of respondents (out of 624 surveyors, so not a big sample size) support defunding the police in the city, including 35% who say they “strongly” support that idea. Only 36% say they oppose defunding the police and 8% said they did not know how to answer the question.
 
From this alone, one can picture that a lot of the surveyors here, clearly a majority, have no idea what defunding the police means or what it actually does. But you get an even stronger sense of this given what they also went on to answer.
 
When asked if they support the idea of increasing the number of police, decreasing it, or maintaining it as it is, 58% said they either want more police or are fine with the current number, including 31% who want to increase, with only 27% wanting to reduce the number of police.
 
So a majority of the city’s residents, as represented by the respondents, support the idea of defunding the police while at the same time, an even bigger majority supports the idea of either maintaining the number of police or increasing the number of police?
 
I don’t blame you for being confused, but allow me to try and untangle this mess.
 
I have two theories as to why we see these seemingly contradictory numbers. My first theory is that Oakland’s residents have no idea what defunding the police means or what it would actually and effectually do to the police departments.
 
It could be that they believe the police department could be defunded only in terms of equipment or some such thing, but considering that they want more officers (which means they want more safety and a better ability for the law to be enforced), I doubt that that’s what they want. If you want more officers, that means you want the law to be better enforced because you don’t think the current number is sufficient. If you want the law to be better enforced by adding more officers, you don’t couple that with decreased or zero funding.
 
This also does away with the idea that people think “defund” means “still funding them but giving them less than what they got previously.” If you want more officers, you want more safety. If you want more safety, you want the police to be well-funded.
 
This first theory of mine that the residents don’t know what it means could still be the case, which is why I don’t eliminate it as a possibility entirely, particularly since it could be that a lot of people didn’t think too much about what defunding the police would actually do, but maybe I’m not giving the people of Oakland enough credit.
 
This first theory presumes ignorance, which could be the case, but I cannot say for certain whether or not the people of Oakland know that defunding the police would inevitably lead to less police officers out on the streets.
 
But let’s move on to my second and final theory, which is that the respondents were answering this question as though it were a “black lives matter” question. That is to say, that they think “defunding the police” is a slogan to show support for black people and their “struggle”, and so they say that they support “defunding the police” like they support “black lives matter” without necessarily supporting BLM.
 
Especially in Oakland, where there are a lot of Leftists, it could be that plenty of people do not necessarily agree with this idea but do not want to reveal their true thoughts and beliefs. Similarly to how Joe Biden was supposedly so far ahead in a lot of states and yet, Trump has so far gotten 10 million more votes than he did in 2016, showing massive growth in support.
 
Maybe some people said they “support defunding the police” to protect themselves from some form of persecution, or some people said that to “show they support black people”, but at the end of the day, they actually want more police or the same amount of police, which would require either more funding or the same amount of funding, not less.
 
It’s hard to be a Republican, or even a moderate, and live in a deep blue city or state. It’s for this reason that a lot of once-promising conservative rising stars like Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake end up being RINOs. You can only fight back against the enemy deep within their territory for so long. Of course, some people have far more endurance, like Trump, Tom Cotton, and others, but because of the swamp’s toxicity, a lot of these promising conservatives end up being part of the swamp.
 
Similarly, regular people can only endure in deep-blue areas for so long. They are in a constant battle, especially if they are in any way social with other people. If they have friends, chances are that most or all of them are liberals. Wherever they work, chances are that their bosses are liberals. So in order to maintain a social lifestyle and have any sort of shot at getting promoted (or keeping their job), they have to hide their true thoughts and beliefs, at least to an extent.
 
Used to be that being apolitical or sounding moderate was acceptable, and in many places it might still be, but even that is beginning to be unacceptable by an intolerant Left which demands submission from everyone else. Either you believe the things they believe or you are an enemy. It’s why so many people in the middle are being pushed to the right: The Left is the one pushing them.
 
Even despite the election shenanigans going on regarding the presidency, the Democrats have LOST GROUND in many key areas. Trump is pulling in plenty of minority support, and once-blue areas are turning a little bit red, such as Zapata County in Texas, which is 93% Hispanic and in the last century, has voted for two Republican presidents: Warren Harding and Donald Trump.
 
Going far-Left is hurting the Democrats in many places, even in areas which were once solid-blue.
 
But even despite this reality, many on the Left believe that the key to winning in the future is to double-down and go even further to the Left. This means being far less tolerant of not only right-wingers, but even moderates and those who do not really talk much about politics. So for anyone living in deep-blue cities like Oakland, they have to outwardly express support for Leftist beliefs, even if they 100% oppose them.
 
And so, many express “support” for “defund the police” while at the same time saying that they want the same amount of officers as are currently active or an increase in the number of officers. And the best part? Apart from Chinese respondents, African Americans are the least likely to support defunding the police, and are also most likely to want an increase in police officers and least likely to want a reduction in the police force.
 
So it is a complete myth that supporting “defund the police” is an act of supporting black people and what they have to go through. Black people want to be safe too, and a reduction in police officers means a reduction in their safety. “Defund the police” is not at all a slogan to help and protect black people. It’s a slogan for chaos and destruction. A slogan for far-Leftists to tug at people’s heart strings and make them believe they are fighting for a noble cause when they are not.
 
I’ve already mentioned how James Clyburn noted that he believes “defund the police” hurt the Democrats in down-ballot elections, and I believe he is correct, to an extent. I think there are a lot more reasons than just that, but I believe that is one of them.
 
Which also makes the idea that Joe Biden is ahead at any capacity all the more ludicrous. Sure, he never outright expressed support for “defunding the police” but it’s hard to gauge what he believes when he spent the last few months of the election largely hunkered down at home or believing he was running against George Bush (or George Lopez, if you ask the media).
 
But at any rate, I believe this second theory, that people are outright lying to pollsters about what they believe, is more likely to be correct than the first one. Of course, there is the possibility that it could be a mix of both to an extent, but I still believe this second theory is the correct one.
 
People have lives to live and if they have to, they will lie about what they believe if expressing such beliefs could hurt them at any capacity. It’s the sad reality in which we live.
 
But it is still clear that people do value the police, even while loud Leftists make it seem as though the country has turned against them. “Defund the police” is a slogan from a loud minority, not from a majority.
 
Romans 13:4
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer.”

I would like to thank all of my voters, friends and family for getting me to where I am today. As President-elect, I will ensure we have a peaceful transition of power and once inaugurated, I will lead this nation away from the communist hellhole the Democrats and the Left wish to take us to and towards a future where God is back in our schools, the Constitution is actually taught, our history is taught, and where no Marxist shall ever find refuge.
 
Why am I saying all of this? Because I currently have about as much claim as Joe Biden does to call myself President-elect. Despite the fake news media calling state after state for Joe Biden and even pretending as though he has passed the 270 electoral vote threshold, he, in fact, has not won jack. The following are states which are heavily contested (due to rampant voter fraud) and have not officially been called or certified in anyone’s favor:

• Nevada
• Arizona
• Wisconsin
• Michigan
• Pennsylvania
• And Georgia

 
Both Alaska and North Carolina have recently been called for Trump, giving him 232 electoral votes so far in comparison to Joe Biden’s 226. As it currently stands, President Trump is ahead in the electoral college vote and has multiple paths for victory against Biden.
 
Matter of fact, The Gateway Pundit pointed this very thing out.
 
In Nevada, as well as in pretty much every other state they mention, they point out the blatant voter fraud that threatens to steal the election away from Trump. “Signatures were not verified on hundreds of thousands of votes. It is likely that President Trump will win this state if any of the ineligible votes are eliminated here…”
 
In Arizona, TGP points to delays in counting. In Wisconsin, TGP points to Biden’s 20,000 vote lead over Trump but notes that “in the morning after the election more than 100,000 votes magically appeared in Milwaukee… If these votes or the exception in the numbers in Rock County are addressed, Trump will likely win this state by a large margin.”
 
In Michigan, 100,000 ballots were dropped overnight in Detroit, and if eliminated from the total vote tally (there are lawsuits taking place here and other states), it will likely go to Trump. If all of these aforementioned states go Trump’s way (as they should), that would give Trump 278 electoral votes.
 
There is also Pennsylvania, where some of the most blatant and obvious rigging and fraud is happening. Biden currently leads the vote count here, but it is very obviously through fraud, given that Trump was ahead by 700,000 votes on election night before the Leftist jackals stopped counting to harvest ballots for Biden. This, I think, is one of the biggest focuses for Trump’s legal team, since I think it is where the easiest case can be made for widespread massive voter fraud.
 
Finally, there is Georgia, which unfortunately, despite it being largely a red state, is seeing a lot of election fraud (and hardly any fight in the state GOP, it seems). Like in other states, Trump was winning this one handily on election night, with a 100,000 vote lead, but ballot harvesting operations have allowed for Biden to take the lead here as well, though they are beginning a hand recount there, so it could end up going for Trump.
 
If the Trump legal team can get those illegal votes thrown out, as they should, Trump will win here as well, for a total of 311 electoral votes. Of course, this is all assuming that the courts rule in Trump’s favor (which, given the rampant voter fraud, they should).
 
Jon Miller wrote a great Twitter thread about the two ways in which the Supreme Court could go here:
 
One way is roughly what I just talked about: SCOTUS orders the states in dispute to remove all illegal ballots and do recount (likely by hand), which would lead to the situation I described above where Trump wins 311 electoral votes.
 
The other way is the SCOTUS rules the entire election as invalid due to the mass voter fraud, which, as Miller writes: “At that point it will be sent to Congress and Senate for a vote.”
 
Now, I know what you might be thinking: “So it’s sent to Congress? Meaning it has to go through the Democrat-led House? Doesn’t that mean that we already lost?” And, no, it doesn’t, as Miller points out: “Congress votes but it has nothing to do with what party has power. Every state gets one vote and 30 states are held by Republicans. 19 by Dems. They have to vote down party lines,” because of the 12th amendment.
 
The Constitution provides for a situation in which an election is either too close for any winner to be declared or where the Supreme Court has to intervene because of rampant and proven fraud. Trump’s legal team doesn’t even have to prove that every single illegal ballot is illegal, just that there is enough that those illegal ballots could intervene in the election and change the results. If that is proven, the SCOTUS can go down different roads, and many of those roads lead to Trump’s second term.
 
This is why the Democrats are rushing with “President-elect Joe Biden.” It’s nothing but posturing. They are well aware of the fact that they could and likely will lose this election through a number of ways, so for the purposes of fighting Trump’s legitimacy, they have to pretend as though HE is the one that “stole” the election as opposed to them.
 
This is why even I (and many others) have begun to call myself “President-elect”, because I have as much legal claim to be that as Joe Biden does. Neither of us have gotten the sufficient amount of legal votes in the electoral college to be President-elect. My “office” of the President-elect includes a desk that’s been battered through a couple of moves, a two-year-old computer, a nearly-decade old monitor, another computer which is years old and never use but always keep on my desk just in case, some books, a couch/bed behind my desk, a white board and a flat-screen television. All of this is just an official part of my office of President-elect as whatever is on Biden’s desk at home or in his basement.
 
I have half a mind to try and contact President Trump about my transition of power for my administration, seeing as I have as much legal claim to it as Biden does.
 
So don’t let any fake news source make the claim that Joe Biden is “President-elect” because he flat-out isn’t. The fake news media doesn’t get to decide the elections, else Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and every other Democrat who came before would have won (and out of all of these, only Carter actually was POTUS at some point).
 
What gets to decide the election is the United States Constitution, and it says that the electoral college decides the election. When it cannot or when it’s this heavily contested, the Supreme Court makes a decision as to the avenue for deciding the president.
 
And by the way, every single news outlet that today is lambasting Trump for “refusing to accept the results of the election” is also every single news outlet which for four years refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, and perhaps even more importantly, PRAISED Al Gore for doing pretty much the same thing that Trump is now doing back in the 2000 election.
 
Gore put this country through 30+ days of litigation, and every step of the way, he was praised by the fake news media as “fighting for democracy.” Now, Trump is doing pretty much the same thing only because of rampant voter fraud which anyone halfway paying attention can notice, and they call him a “sore loser” or other crap.
 
Not that it’s in any way surprising, of course. I would have to be insane to be at all surprised at this kind of reaction from the media. But it’s worth it to point out the great hypocrisy of these people and their outright subjectivity throughout it.
 
Now, something that is fairly ironic about this situation is that it could be a blessing in disguise. One silver lining of the current election fiasco we are witnessing is that it paves the way for Trump to prioritize election security once he enters his second term. Had he won in a landslide like I was originally hoping he would, election security would not have been much of a priority because the fraud, despite its size, would not have been effective enough to sway the election.
 
Trump has so far won more than 72 million votes, which is nearly 10 million more votes than he got four years ago. That is MASSIVE and if it weren’t for the election fraud and its relative success (thus far), it’s what a lot of people would be talking about for a long while. This is more than what Obama got in 2008, and this is WITH THE TOSSED-OUT TRUMP VOTES. In reality, he has even more votes than the official count.
 
But as great as that is for Trump, do you really think that any other Republican could get these kinds of numbers? If the fraud scheme had not been exposed as it had been because it was clearly not effective enough to sway the election, the Democrats would have come back in two years and in four years and every future election cycle with some of the same schemes that would, in the future, actually help them steal the elections.
 
Even despite the annoyance of this current process, and the anger at the Democrats trying to steal an election away from the American people, if Trump is ultimately successful, he can (and should) prioritize election integrity for the future, because I can just about guarantee no Republican in the future will ever win the presidency again if these kind of shenanigans are allowed to continue.
 
At any rate, no one should be calling Joe Biden “President-elect”, seeing as he has not actually won the election. But for as long as Democrats and Leftists do actually call him that, might as well start calling myself that too.
 
This isn’t over folks, not by a long-shot.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice flow down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”