It’s rather easy to search this, but do you want to know what was the very first article that was published on this site? What the topic was about? The very first article was about a very similar subject to this one: Christian persecution, and it asked the question of whether or not there is Christian persecution in the United States.
To summarize that article, yes, there is Christian persecution in the U.S., has been for a while, and it very well might get worse in the future if we allow it.
However, it’s worth pointing out that there pretty much has always been Christian persecution for as long as the religion itself has existed (and technically before, since Christ suffered that kind of persecution, despite Him having been Jewish and following Jewish law). I’ve already talked about that, nearly two years to the date.
Christians will always be persecuted and we have been for a very long time. One example of this in the history of Christendom is the story of Thomas Becket, an English archbishop who was persecuted and ultimately murdered for defending the Church and placing it ahead of the Crown.
The 850th anniversary of his martyrdom was very recent, on December 29th, and President Trump made sure to commemorate this anniversary and that moment in history, adding the need to end Christian persecution much like what happened to Becket.
In a proclamation, President Trump wrote: “Today is the 850th anniversary of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket on December 29, 1170. Thomas Becket was a statesman, a scholar, a chancellor, a priest, an archbishop, and a lion of religious liberty.”
“Before the Magna Carta was drafted, before the right to free exercise of religion was enshrined as America’s first freedom in our glorious Constitution, Thomas gave his life so that, as he said, ‘the Church will attain liberty and peace.’”
The president went on to give a brief summary of Becket’s biography, noting that Becket was an archbishop who was killed by four knights of King Henry II in his church, Canterbury Cathedral, on December 29, 1170, after Becket famously resisted the king’s attempt at dwindling the power of the Church with the Constitutions of Clarendon.
Trump’s proclamation went on to say that when Becket refused to accept Henry’s declaration, “the furious King Henry II threatened to hold him in contempt of royal authority and questioned why this ‘poor and humble’ priest would dare defy him, Archbishop Becket responded ‘God is the supreme ruler, above Kings’ and ‘we ought to obey God rather than men.’”
“Because Thomas would not assent to rendering the church subservient to the state, he was forced to forfeit all his property and flee his own country. Years later, after the intervention of the Pope, Becket was allowed to return – and continued to resist the King’s oppressive interferences into the life of the church. Finally, the King had enough of Thomas Becket’s stalwart defense of religious faith and reportedly exclaimed in consternation: ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’”
“The King’s knights responded and rode to Canterbury Cathedral to deliver Thomas Becket an ultimatum: give in to the King’s demands or die. Thomas’ reply echoes around the world and across the ages. His last words on this earth were these: ‘For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.’ Dressed in holy robes, Thomas was cut down where he stood inside the walls of his own church.”
“Thomas Becket’s martyrdom changed the course of history. It eventually brought about numerous constitutional limitations on the power of the state over the Church across the West. In England, Becket’s murder led to the Magna Carta’s declaration 45 years later that: ‘[T]he English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.’”
“When the Archbishop refused to allow the King to interfere in the affairs of the Church, Thomas Becket stood at the intersection of church and state. That stand, after centuries of state-sponsored religious oppression and religious wars throughout Europe, eventually led to the establishment of religious liberty in the New World. It is because of great men like Thomas Becket that the first American President George Washington could proclaim more than 600 years later that, in the United States, ‘All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship’ and that ‘it is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.’”
“On this day, we celebrate and revere Thomas Becket’s courageous stand for religious liberty and we reaffirm our call to end religious persecution worldwide.” Trump added that “the crimes against people of faith must stop, prisoners of conscience must be released, laws restricting freedom of religion and belief must be repealed, and the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed must be protected.”
The president concluded: “As long as America stands, we will always defend religious liberty. A society without religion cannot prosper. A nation without faith cannot endure – because justice, goodness, and peace cannot prevail without the grace of God.”
He is right, of course, in all of these regards. But given the nature of the Left, who are driven by Satanic beliefs, we will not see the end of Christian persecution any time soon.
Like I pointed out in that article from nearly two years ago, what the United States has done for those of us who are Christians is give us a moment of relief from that sort of persecution. Legally and constitutionally, we are free to exercise our religion. The problem comes when even those who are sworn to enforce the law and protect the constitution willingly decide not to do so. While there are a number of police officers who have defied their insane (often Democrat) governors and their tyrannical mandates, I have seen far too many videos online of police officers forcing Christians to disperse from public prayer and forcing churches to shut down.
The Chinese coronavirus gave people in power with already some dictatorial tendencies to freely and with impunity rule their states and cities with an iron fist. I’ve already detailed how Cuomo and de Blasio have targeted synagogues and churches by forcing them to shut down while allowing mosques to still operate, and there are stories of churches in California being fined and threatened with permanent closure for defying Newsom’s orders.
Christian persecution exists in different forms at different times. One thing I will say is that even this current persecution is not quite as bad as it used to be in the past, or as it is in other parts of the world like in China or some Middle Eastern countries. Christian leaders today aren’t being killed in cold blood by police for defying the lockdown orders. Thomas Becket was killed in cold blood by the king’s knights (the equivalent to today’s police) for defying a piece of legislation specifically because of its clause which subjected priests charged with a serious felony to being judged by a secular jury and being given a “secular punishment”.
I don’t know everything about how the criminal justice system used to work in 12th century England under the rule of King Henry II, and I have no idea what “secular punishment” means, but it’s clear that it was far easier for tyrants to exercise extreme measures against what they consider to be pests for things which are, from what I can see, considerably less of a big deal in comparison to impeding the religious liberty of assembly and worship of Christians in states across the country. I don’t want to trivialize or minimize what Christians had to go through back then, but I consider this present crisis to be worse than the Constitutions of Clarendon, seeing as it affects far more people than just priests who are charged with serious felonies (and who knows what constituted as a “serious felony” in those days?).
Even still, it’s not like Newsom or Cuomo can order cops to shoot and kill church leaders for their defiance. Even de Blasio has made numerous threats to permanently close down synagogues but has yet to actually go through with that, despite those synagogues’ persistent defiance.
So in many ways, this kind of Christian persecution is not nearly as bad as it was back then (again, church leaders aren’t being extrajudicially murdered for their defiance), so we should count our blessings, but any Christian persecution must be fought against anyway.
We will continue to see it, undoubtedly, and it could potentially get far worse. Again, the law and the Constitution protect us but only insofar as there are those who are willing to enforce the law and Constitution. Otherwise, law is just words written on paper and utterly worthless.
The country has the laws necessary for protecting and securing our borders – we just need to enforce those laws. The country has the laws necessary for protecting us against election fraud – we just need to enforce those laws. The country has the laws necessary for protecting religious freedom – we just need to enforce those laws.
The good news is that, either way, we are blessed in the Lord. If we are not persecuted, that’s great; if we are, that’s fine too. God will recompense us all our sorrows, our worries, our pain. All that we lose, God will multiply. If the enemy takes away our wealth, God will multiple that wealth. If the enemy takes away our families, God will multiply those families. If the enemy takes away our lives, God has guaranteed us eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ.
The enemy has power, but that power is nothing compared to God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Before I begin, I think we should take what the CDC gives us with a grain of salt. Organizations like this one and the WHO have not exactly been wholly trustworthy in the eyes of many for the past year or so because of their b.s. Chinese coronavirus actions, what with the WHO doing the CCP’s bidding in lying to the world about human-to-human spread of the virus and the CDC being proponents of lockdown measures which scientifically have not proven to be effective measures against the virus.
However, despite all this, we kind of have to take certain facts and figures at face value, to one extent or another, since we do not have competing organizations that can perform similar tasks.
Now, every week, the CDC issues a report for a variety of diseases, such as the Swine Flu, Influenza, and most recently, the Chinese coronavirus. And interestingly enough, for some time now, the CDC has recorded fewer Influenza cases than are usually around, even for this time of year.
In their report, the CDC splits Influenza testing into two categories: tests performed in Public Health Labs and tests performed in Clinical Labs. The tests performed in clinical labs are often substantially more than in public health labs, and the positive cases often follow suit. However, there is a strange anomaly present throughout this clinical season (which they count similar to how some sports organizations count their seasons: 2020-21). Despite the number of Influenza tests having been the most in the last five years, there are insanely low positive cases.
Let’s take the Public Health Labs first, to show you what I mean. The latest CDC report is for Week 51, which ended on December 19th. In Week 51 of 2015, public health labs performed 586 influenza tests with 38 positives, at a positive rate of 6.48%. Week 51 of 2016 saw 796 tests with 256 positive cases, at 32.16% positive rate. 2017, there were 1,684 tests with 831 positive cases, a 49.35% positive rate. In 2018, the number of tests went down to 824, but there were 445 positive cases, a 54.00% positive rate. And finally, in week 51 of 2019, there were 1,848 tests performed with 1,074 positive cases, a positive rate of 58.12%.
This means that the five-year average was 1,148 tests, 529 positive cases, and a positive rate of 46.08%.
For 2020, however, there were 14,174 tests and only NINE positive cases, a 0.06% positive rate.
Let’s now take a look at Clinical Labs tests, which do not depict a much different story.
I won’t go over each year for this one, since I don’t want to overload you with information, but the five-year average for tests is 22,154, with 3,750 positives, and a 14.59% positive rate. This year’s tests for Week 51 were at 21,456, which is only a little lower than average, but with 27 positive cases and a 0.13% positive rate.
Taking both kinds of testing together, the Week 51 five-year average is 23,302 tests with 4,278 positive cases and a 15.80% positive rate. For this year’s Week 51, however, there were 35,630 tests and only 36 positive cases, a 0.10% positive rate.
Here is the spreadsheet for these numbers provided by Phil Kerpen, if you want to look at all the numbers:
And it’s not like this is an anomaly that’s exclusive to Week 51. Taking weeks 40 to 51 for this season in comparison to other seasons, we also see a massive anomaly.
For those 12 weeks, the five-year average number of tests for public health labs is 16,614, with 4,967 positive cases and a 29.89% positive rate. For this season’s Weeks 40 to 51, public health labs have performed 196,992 tests and came across only 135 positive cases, for a 0.07% positive rate. Clinical Labs are fairly similar, as their five-year average for those weeks is 250,525 total tests, 15,135 positive cases and a 5.39% positive rate. This year’s clinical labs tests were 319,985, with only 720 positive cases and a 0.23% positive rate.
So the total for those two tests, in a five-year average, is 267,140 tests, 20,101 positive cases and a positive rate of 6.77%. But for this season’s weeks, there were a staggering 516,977 tests, but only 855 positive cases, a 0.17% positive rate.
Here is Phil’s spreadsheet for Weeks 40 to 51:
The million-dollar question here is why we are seeing these numbers. It’s easy to say that testing for the Chinese coronavirus is the reason we are seeing “fewer” flu cases, and that very well could be the case, but it’s not like these people aren’t testing for non-COVID things. Like I just said, they are testing at record levels, so the reason we are seeing these numbers isn’t because they aren’t testing for these diseases. So, then, I kind of have to question the tests themselves.
You see, as a result of numerous states counting Chinese coronavirus deaths by tallying very clearly non-COVID-related deaths like gunshot wounds or falling off of tall structures, I have had far less trust in the way in which “experts” and “scientists” run their numbers. That a member of the Austrian parliament managed to test a glass of Coca-Cola and find that the popular drink tested POSITIVE for the Chinese coronavirus also leads me to question the accuracy of medical tests.
Now, that Austrian MP did that to show how worthless the mass PCR test is, not to generally show that medical tests are sketchy, but that any test can be sketchy should bring questions to people’s minds.
Seeing as there were far more positive cases in years prior as opposed to this one, despite the number of tests performed, I can’t help but put into question how trustworthy these tests are. If they are the same tests as previous years, then that leads me to the following question: did these scientists produce fake positives in the previous years, or are they producing fake negatives now? Because if they are the same test, with the same accuracy as years prior, then something has to give.
You cannot reasonably have the exact same tests as the ones performed in years prior, perform more tests than ever before, and somehow find far fewer positive cases than ever before. Week 51 saw fewer total positive cases than the Public Health Labs did in Week 51 of 2015, with roughly 60x the amount of tests performed.
So either something in the tests changed (they very well could be different tests entirely, but if that’s the case, the CDC should look into that and why they are producing these numbers) or the scientists have some sort of motive for producing these results.
Now, that goes more into conspiracy territory, and without evidence of such motive, I cannot say that that’s what is the truth concerning this situation, but I don’t exactly trust these scientists and “experts”. Matter of fact, the only reason I don’t trust the tests is because of the people running them in the first place. Like guns don’t kill people, tests don’t test people – people kill people and people test people. A test is merely the tool through which the doctors and scientists examine subjects. They have the ability to manipulate tests and data, and may do so if provided with a reason.
And considering how much the Left has bastardized science and profit off of the Chinese coronavirus, I wouldn’t be surprised if these numbers are a result of that malevolent intent at fear-spreading and power-grabbing. I’m not saying that that’s definitely and absolutely the case, but one cannot realistically rule that possibility out. There are a lot of people out there in places of power and authority who are evil and will do whatever they can to achieve their goals. We have already seen the spread of their influence in even places like the sciences, so this is not as wild of an assumption to make as it may have been in decades prior.
I don’t know exactly why the CDC is seeing the numbers that they are reporting (and take into consideration that I have to take what they give me at face value, even while I don’t want to), and it’s possible, even likely, that I never will know, but I can’t help but assume the worst in these people.
One thing is for certain: you cannot say that these people (so-called “scientists”, not just the CDC) don’t have an agenda. They have shown this time and time again for years now, and in particular this past year.
2 Timothy 3:5
“Having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”
It might be cliched to compare this stuff to George Orwell’s “1984”, but one can hardly avoid making the comparisons, seeing as the Left has taken that book as an instruction manual for how to operate. But it’s not just the elected Left which employs this junk. Leftists in the private sector and in academia also operate much like Big Brother, in some cases even issuing “newspeak” whenever they see fit.
This is what the University of Michigan has done recently, and this is far from the only time I have talked about that craphole of an “institute for higher learning.” In the past, they have both had black students self-segregate and had faculty organizing a “whites-only” café. Now, their Ministry of Truth, the “Words Matter Task Force”, has issued a list of “inclusive language” terms for the purposes of replacing current terms they deem “offensive.”
The following image shows this list:
There is plenty here for me to go over, but I will only talk about a few of them, so as to not make this article needlessly long.
First, of course, there is the replacing of “man” and “men”, as well as “girl/gal,” and “boy/guy.” Because these people want to do away with the biological fact that there are only two genders, they replace those natural words with “people” and “person” or just the man or woman’s name. Nothing different from what we have seen before, but it’s egregious that I am this accustomed to the destruction of objective fact for the purposes of wokeism.
Then, there are things like “blacklist/whitelist” and “black-and-white thinking”, which I assume are only on this list because they include the colors “black” and “white”. The thing is that neither of those terms are in reference to race. “Blacklist” comes from the 1610s, and was in reference to disgrace, censure or punishment. In 1884, it was largely used by employers to make lists of workers they considered to be troublesome, usually due to union activity. It has nothing to do with black people in general, and “whitelist” has nothing to do with white people.
The same applies to “black-and-white thinking”. That phrase is about thinking in absolute extremes, such as thinking that one is “absolutely perfect and flawless” or “is the devil in the flesh.” It’s usually used in the context of people saying “reality isn’t so black-and-white,” meaning that it’s not as clear-cut as someone is alleging it is. For example, most fairy tales and stories are pretty black and white, because you know who the good guys are – and such people always do good things – and who the bad guys are – and such people always do bad things. Again, nothing to do with race.
Not that it matters, of course. Leftists often think along superficial lines, and see the terms “black” and “white” always in the context of race and not the colors themselves, even if their actual context is not within race.
The term “brown bag” is likely also a result of this line of thinking. They ban it because they think of brown people when they think of a brown bag (which tells you how racist these people are), instead of the fact that the phrase “brown bag” is in reference to lunch and how lunch is often times carried in a paper bag which happens to be brown. Maybe lunch should now be carried in silver plastic bags so as to not offend these snowflakes, but then they would whine at you for “killing the planet,” so you really can’t win with these people.
There is also the term “grandfathered”, which is seemingly due to the grandfather clause used in the Jim Crow south to give white people an advantage when voting over black people, but there is a very clear issue with this line of thinking: if that term can be connected with that clause, then couldn’t the actual familial relationship of a grandfather – and thus, the concept of a grandfather – also be problematic?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left started pushing for that idea – that grandfathers are problematic – largely because of both the gender of grandfathers and the age (the Left hates old people, as evidenced by Cuomo and Whitmer’s acts against them in their states).
Later on, there is also the terms “honey, sweetheart, sweetie”, possibly because the Left has no idea of the concept of love and seemingly hate pet names.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with “honey” or “sweetheart”, etc.? Sassy black women and gay men tend to mock those they disagree with by saying “oh, honey,” so wouldn’t this list be an attempt at limiting their vocabulary?
By the same token, why is “long time, no see” problematic? Its origin is in Chinese Pidgin English, supposedly from a short story in 1892 where a Chinese girl, during a conversation with someone, said “I think I go see my mamma today. Long time no see.” Is it problematic because of its origin or because of the kind of broken English you sometimes stereotypically hear from Chinese migrants? I’m willing to bet it’s for that reason, but frankly, no one means any sort of offense by saying it.
Even I did not know of its Chinese English origins until I looked it up, so I doubt most people would know about it and willingly be trying to mock Chinese migrants with it. Either way, it’s ridiculous that the University of Michigan would be banning these words and phrases. I guess they want to cull even phrases originated by migrants, much like they have culled the accomplishments of black people by getting rid of Aunt Jemima from the company’s products.
There is also the term “native” which is rather funny for me to see here. I can only imagine ignorant college students attacking Christopher Columbus for “killing” the Built-in Americans, or the Innate Americans. They clearly were largely talking about things, and not the race of Native Americans, but they were making this change because of the race, not in spite of it, so I can’t help but make that funny little connection. In order to not offend Native Americans, these people thought it would be wise to call other things which are not in relation to Native Americans (which, by the way, is a term created by the Left to replace the word “Indians” or “Indian Americans”, so they are trying to replace a term that THEY created to REPLACE ANOTHER TERM) because they thought it would offend those people.
Makes sense, considering their relentless attack on the Washington Redskins, who ultimately caved and embarrassingly are comfortable with having the temporary name of “Washington Football Team,” even though the vast majority of Native Americans did not have an issue with the name to begin with. Woke people do “good” things for minorities, even if the minorities don’t want those things.
Finally, there is the term “picnic”, which is also a bit of a headscratcher as to why it’s here. The UK Daily Mail suggests that the reason that term is here is because of “false suggestions on the internet that it originates from the racist, extrajudicial killings of African Americans.”
So these apparently “anti-racist” people chose the term “picnic” because it kind of sounds like “pick a n-word?” The term’s actual etymology is 17th century France, where the word “pique-nique” is used to describe social gatherings in which people contribute some amount of food… like a typical English picnic, in other words.
These Leftists really can’t help but see race in everything, even the most mundane and innocent of things like “picnic” just because, to the mind of a Leftist, it sounds like “pick a n-word” for the purposes of lynching them. Before today, I had never made that kind of connection, but then again, I’m not an insane Leftist who is outright conspiratorial about the meaning and etymology of certain words and phrases.
Maybe we should also ban the words “black” and “white” outright, despite them simply being colors, because they can be used in relation to race. Maybe we should also ban the word “person” because it has “son” in it. Maybe we should ban the word “window” because it has “win” in it and that promotes a spirit of competition and capitalism.
Who knows what other “newspeak” these Leftists will come up with to further choke freedom of speech? And you know that that’s the end goal. The UK Daily Mail noted that “It’s not clear if there will be any penalties for staff who don’t abide by the recommendations.” However, that’s hardly the point. The point isn’t to penalize staff for not using it – it’s to shift the entire culture to ensure that they are used and that punishments will be dealt by people, not official authorities.
For example, it’s not outright necessary to mandate the use of masks everywhere, because those who wear masks will, at least in some cases, outright yell at those not wearing masks and shame them into wearing one. Such people are not concerned with the inefficiencies of masks – matter of fact, they will 100% believe that masks work because that’s what “the experts” and “science” are saying, and anyone who doesn’t listen to them is an “ignorant science denier” at best and a “dangerous, lunatic serial killer” at worst.
Seriously, these lunatics will get right into people’s faces to yell at them to social distance and wear a mask. They carry measuring tape with them to make sure people stay 6ft apart (and such measurements can only be taken by breaking that guideline themselves, but they will never acknowledge that hypocrisy).
Maybe the university will issue punishments for members of their staff, and maybe even their students, for not adjusting to their “newspeak”, but that’s hardly the long-term goal. The purpose of this is to shift an entire culture towards doling out the punishments themselves, leading people to snitch on each other not unlike in “1984”.
As outright funny as it is to find some of the items on that list, what’s not funny is the blatant attempt at censorship by these groups of people. What’s worse is their push for making it so normal and “righteous” that they lead normal people themselves to be the gatekeepers and guardians of these rules.
Big Brother was only as powerful as it was because it managed to convince just about their entire populace to accept their new rules as being “just” and “fair” and “good”. The period before the “revolution” is regarded, even by those who question BB, as having been filled with injustice and unfairness. And those who do question BB are treated as outright traitors by the people.
Similarly, the Left’s aim is to convince just about the entire populace to accept their new rules, which they claim are “just” and “fair” and “good,” and are in direct opposition to this supposed period of “injustice” and “unfairness.”
Again, it may be cliched to compare the current situation with Orwell’s work, but one can hardly avoid doing so when they see these very things happening. I see the Left attempting to become Big Brother, doing many of the same things BB did, so I can’t help but note the parallels here.
We are obviously not quite there yet, as my own opposition to this sort of Big Brother is allowed to exist and I am not being sent to a secretive reeducation facility to “admit” to my “crimes” and to make me “love” Big Brother “again”. But there are a lot of similarities here with that work of fiction, which I can clearly see some people want to bring into reality.
Here’s hoping we can put a stop to all of that before it’s too late.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
I want to begin this article by making a couple of disclaimers. First, and perhaps most importantly, I am not a lawyer. I cannot give legal advice or counsel, nor can I give expert opinion on the procedures and logistics of possibilities for the Trump legal team to seek legal action against a clearly rigged election result. However, I will be largely quoting actual lawyers, who themselves have already written plenty about the legal options of the Trump team, both back in late November and more recently on Christmas Eve.
So whatever legal opinions are shared here, they will largely either be quotes or paraphrases of these lawyers, or at least backed up by what these lawyers are sharing.
The second disclaimer I want to make is that I am not saying that Trump only has this option for resolving the issue of a stolen election. This one is a little less important, since I don’t think too many people would interpret that title as whittling down Trump’s options for victory, but I still want to make this perfectly clear simply due to my not trusting the Supreme Court at this point (for good reason) and not believing that they are willing to actually do anything to save the Republic or even themselves, not to mention that I also don’t trust the current Acting AG.
But regardless of those things, allow me to share with you the thoughts of a couple of prominent conservative legal scholars who are giving their opinions about the SCOTUS having rejected the Texas suit against four “swing” states (generally titled Texas v. Pennsylvania), and who make a suggestion (which they have gone so far as to formally submit to President Trump himself) about what legal steps the president can take to right the many wrongs committed during this election that have resulted in a fake president-elect.
First, they give their opinions of the ghastly decision by the SCOTUS to reject the Texas suit:
“In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”
“However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully – by a different plaintiff…”
The lawyers, named William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney, note that the SCOTUS made a massive mistake which could have huge ramifications if not corrected. In rejecting the suit, the Court committed wrongs against Texas and the roughly 20 states which supported its suit (which includes Arizona, for some reason), the United States itself, the President, and We the People.
You see, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, wrote that courts have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” Courts have the obligation to explain their decisions satisfactorily to the People, else the reasoning behind the decisions can easily be seen as partisan or corrupted. In its refusal to take up the case, the Court (all nine justices, though it was a 7-2 decision, technically) only issued the reason of “lacking standing”, explaining that reason with one sentence: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.”
That is simply not enough to issue reasoned judgment. It arbitrarily says “yeah, we’re not taking it up because I don’t really think you care about how other states do their elections.” I don’t know the exact wording of every page of Texas’ suit, but I can hardly imagine they went so far as to sue those four states (and be joined by around 20 other states) without providing much of a reason. Texas is most certainly interested in how another state conducts its election because the results of that election affect Texas, or at least, the process of that election’s result.
The winner of that election can institute policy which could harm Texas (Biden’s “green” policies would hurt the Lone Star State), but even more important than that, it would affect Texas illegally. No, a state cannot sue another state for having voted one way or another, as that would pretty much destroy the entire system of the Republic. Texas can’t sue Pennsylvania for having gone to Biden instead of Trump like California can’t sue Texas for having gone to Trump instead of Biden. However, Texas can sue Pennsylvania for having clearly and overtly (to the admission of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court) gone against both its state constitution and the U.S. Constitution by implementing and executing rules that are not legal or constitutional.
Because those rules were unconstitutional, and they helped Biden “win” that state, that is an illegal result, and so Texas has standing based on that, since they would be illegally and unconstitutionally affected by the result of the election. Furthermore, by doing what Pennsylvania and those other states did, they are utterly corrupting the electoral process by which we select our president. If those states are allowed to do what they did with impunity, then Texas’ voice, as well as all other states, don’t matter in this election. Their electoral power and voice are eliminated entirely because of an illegal and fake result in those states.
Like the lawyers said: “If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support.” Again, if it were all legal, Texas, Trump and his voters would all have to suck it up and admit defeat. But because it was blatantly illegal, we cannot simply accept the result because we know it is not legitimate.
So it’s not only absolutely unacceptable for the SCOTUS to have issued a one-sentence explanation for their decision regarding what is perhaps the biggest suit in the history of the country, but the explanation itself is illogical and constitutionally unsound.
The lawyers put it pretty well: “In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.”
If a state cannot be allowed to sue another state which has clearly broken not only its own constitution but also the constitution of the United States, what exactly is the reason for the union to remain? The Constitution is a contract which all states sign on to. If one of them breaks that contract and gets away with it, what reason is there for the others to keep honoring it? What reason is there for the states to remain unified under a broken contract?
It’s why I am not against secession if Biden ends up being the occupier of the oval office. Secession, ironically, would be the only way to preserve the union. We’re not quite there yet, and I pray to God we never get there, because secession would definitely lead to another civil war at one point or another. War is sometimes necessary, but it’s never ideal, and I would much rather avoid it if it can be avoided. But if it’s the only way to preserve the union, it cannot be taken off the table, due to its alternative: full-on communism.
At any rate, after disparaging the Supreme Court for its cowardly actions to defend the constitution at a crucial moment, the lawyers went on to note a way in which this legal case can still be made and be heard by the Supreme Court:
“A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation… Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.”
That strategy could theoretically work because the majority of the Supreme Court (two of which are solidly conservative and the others less so but appointed by Trump) could hardly argue that the United States of America does not have a standing or interest in defending the United States constitution.
My only worry is in the fact that it would be up to Acting AG Rosen to file such a suit, which I am not sure he would be willing to do. And at this point, having had great hopes for both Jeff Sessions and William Barr to seek justice wherever they can, without politics being involved in the decision-making process, and being completely disappointed by both of them when they were of great need, I cannot say I have much hope in Acting AG Rosen to seek this option, even under direct order from President Trump.
Trump’s legal team can’t issue this suit since that would have to make it a private suit as opposed to a federal one, and there would be almost zero chance that the SCOTUS would take it up.
Olson and McSweeney’s suggestion could be plausible, and if actually performed (that is, Rosen actually files that suit), would pretty much be guaranteed to have its day in court, but there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about it, at best. I do not trust anyone in the swamp, and while I don’t know a lot about Rosen, do not outright trust him to be willing to go through with this.
Of course, as I mentioned towards the beginning, this legal challenge is not all Trump has to right the wrongs of this election. One Republican representative and Senator objecting to the results of the election on January 6th are all that’s needed to send Congress (presided by Pence) into deliberation and activation of the 12th amendment, leading state legislatures in those states to having one representative voting for the party they have to vote for, leading to Trump’s victory.
But I write this to remind people that there are still a number of options out there, both politically and legally (Martial Law and the use of the military should be last resorts, but not off the table options), to ensure that the rightful winner of this election actually ends up winning this election.
The SCOTUS should absolutely be ashamed of itself for potentially destroying the Republic with that heinous decision, and the people involved in attempting to steal this election should face extreme consequences for their treason.
“Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!”
Frankly, I originally did not intend to be writing about the useless crap our government wastes our money on so soon after the omnibus bill (which President Trump thankfully vetoed because he is a real patriot), but Sen. Rand Paul’s annual report on government waste was released around the same time of the release of that article, and I kind of want to make this an annual series (for as long as either the government keeps wasting money or I am alive, with the latter being more likely).
And similar to last year’s report, I will talk about only a few things on this report, though the report itself is utterly chockful of other wasteful spending that I would like to get to but doing so would make this article unnecessarily lengthy.
So let’s begin with some of the asinine crap that the government wasted our tax-payer dollars on:
There is a real and sick push out there on the Left to force you into subsistence all for the sake of “saving the planet” from “man-made climate change.” You, the peasant, are responsible for killing the planet, which involves eating meat and stuff like that, so you must be willing to eat bugs like an animal or like people in extremely poor African nations in order to rectify that. Meanwhile, the elites get to enjoy bigger and bigger supplies of rich meat and other delicacies, and will even justify their better lifestyle as them “fighting for the planet,” by telling you how to live a “greener” lifestyle. It’s utter bullcrap, but they will see just how far they can push us on this and how much we are willing to swallow (pun kind of intended).
2. $36M to find out why stress makes hair turn gray.
A Harvard study from January of 2020 shows that it’s the fight-or-flight response triggered under stress that can lead to permanent changes in stem cells that influence the hair’s color. I can only assume that at least some of the money spent by the government went to Harvard in researching this, but I have to ask: why? Why waste money on this? If scientists have the curiosity to find this stuff out, fair enough, but why do taxpayers have to pay for this research?
3. $6.9M using cancer research money for the purposes of creating… a “smart toilet.”
Twitter is already a craphole, so I suppose that the government wanted to see if they could interact in the septic social media while actually taking a crap. But this one is particularly special. You see, this is not only extremely asinine, as hardly anyone needs a “smart toilet”, whatever that means, but this is also rather insulting and repulsive not merely due to the subject matter but due to the reappropriation of funds used for such a purpose. Taking money from cancer research to create a “smart toilet” is what a crap government does (pun very much intended that time), and one that could hardly care about the people suffering from the horrible disease.
4. $3.4M to send messages to moms to stop their teenage daughters from indoor tanning.
I can only imagine the phone bill of the U.S. government if they are sending $3.4M worth of text messages to mothers of teenage girls seeking to get fake tans. But seriously, what the hell is this? Not only is this an asinine waste of money, but it displays something considerably more sinister: an attempt by the government to regulate and direct people’s behavior. There is other stuff on here that is of similar nature, such as the government wasting money to get U.S. adults to stop binge-watching TV, but that only further goes to show how they truly do not see themselves as working for the people. Those who believe they can work and manipulate other people do not see themselves as their workers. What business does the government have if teenage girls are getting fake tans? And what purpose does it serve to regulate that behavior via sending messages to their mothers?
5. $2M to test if hot tubbing can lower stress.
Similar to that first point about stress causing white hair, this one is utterly asinine, but I can see the elitist purposes of this one. After all, there is no doubt in my mind that no less than 95% of people in Congress own a hot tub. They are worried about their shallow images, so they fund idiotic research like the link between stress and white hair, as well as possible cures for that, such as seeing if sitting in a hot tub can lower stress. Next, they’ll probably test if sitting in a sauna also lowers stress (frankly, it’s possible they’ve already funded that kind of research).
6. $1M to try to get people to stop being afraid of going to the dentist.
I have no words. I mean, what can I even say about this one?
7. $10M to spend five years monitoring elections in Zimbabwe.
Could we have gotten some of that money for monitoring our own elections? Because it seems to me like we could have used that. Like in my previous article, it seems like government officials are more interested in the elections of other countries, but could hardly care about the security and integrity of our own, as long as The Party’s preferred candidate was declared the “winner.” The omnibus bill included a challenge to the Belarusian elections (for some of the same issues which plagued the American elections) and also have spent our money on monitoring the elections in Zimbabwe. Can you tell me the name of the president of Zimbabwe? Did you even know that they had presidents? Maybe the name Robert Mugabe rings a bell, since he used to be president of Zimbabwe from 1978 until 2017. Apparently, our government is interested in who wins the elections there, for some reason.
8. $1.5M walking lizards on a treadmill.
Okay, I thought the one about getting people to stop being afraid of going to the dentist was the stupidest one on here, but I was wrong. What the hell is the purpose of this, exactly? This one tops last year’s funding of research to study the effects of nicotine on fish. I cannot at all even see a supposed purpose for this one. At least with the smoking fish, I could rationalize in my own head the purpose of the research (and even then, I noticeably struggled in that endeavor), but I cannot make heads or tails of this one. Why? Why would you do that? To test if the lizards enjoy a bit of cardio? Did the lizards gain a bit of weight during Thanksgiving and they needed a workout? Are we testing to see if lizards can be walked like dogs? I’m racking my brain here trying to make sense of this, but I really can’t.
9. $200,000 to study how people cooperate while playing e-sports video games.
The answer is that they probably cooperate like they would in actual sports: communication and planning. Football players and coaches draw up plays for them to try and win. Basketball players do the same. Competitive video game players, no doubt, do the same thing. That’s how they cooperate. Can I have my money now, government?
10. $4.5M to spray alcoholic rats with bobcat urine.
Okay, I have several questions. First, why? Second, why are the rats alcoholic? Third, why spray them with bobcat urine? Fourth, why spray them with urine at all? Fifth, why spend $4.5 million on this? What purpose does this serve? To see if the alcoholic rats got ticked off? I imagine they did. You would too if you were blackout drunk and someone sprayed you with urine. Just why?
There is much, much more, but I can only fit so many items and briefly talk about each of them without making this article overly lengthy. Sen. Rand Paul overall arrived at an estimated $54.7 billion in government waste, which could have been used to, I don’t know, give Americans more than an accumulated $1,800 over nine months!
The overall message of this article is not really dissimilar to the previous article regarding the omnibus bill: these people hate you and don’t have much problem with showing that. They will happily spend money finding out if hot tubs reduce stress, what the effect is for walking lizards on a treadmill, and what happens when you spray inexplicably alcoholic rats with bobcat urine, while the American people are outright forced by their local and state governments to lock down and be out of work. The government cares more about monitoring elections in Zimbabwe (which aren’t even scheduled to take place for another two years, so why is that item in this year’s budget? Or at all?) than it does about monitoring our own elections to make sure that one of the candidates doesn’t steal it from the rightful winner via election fraud.
The government is far more preoccupied with setting forth an agenda to force you into a strict diet of bugs while they dine like kings.
The Party hates you and will make you suffer for the success that you have brought for yourself. Even for those who are already poor, their share of suffering will further increase because The Party hates everyone whom they believe is beneath them.
1984 was supposed to be a warning for present and future generations about government overreach, not an instruction manual for those seeking to subject the world to their will.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Back in March of 2018, President Donald Trump, unfortunately, signed a horrendous omnibus bill for the fiscal year 2018 in order to avoid a shutdown. For fiscal years 2019 and 2020, Congress avoided pulling the same bullcrap, 11th hour writing and voting of an omnibus bill, heeding the warning by President Trump that he would not sign another bill like it.
Seeing as most people in Congress believe Joe Biden to be the President-elect, they are back to their usual b.s. ways, writing up an over 5,000-page omnibus package with Chinese coronavirus “relief” in it, and overwhelmingly voted for it in both chambers.
This omnibus bill is an even bigger slap in the face than the 2018 one was, seeing as we were not in government-mandated lockdowns back then.
With millions of people unemployed (and with stricter lockdown measures being imposed by far-Left governors, leading to worsening situations), thousands of businesses closed and fewer ways for Americans to feed themselves, Congress has approved a b.s. spending bill which graciously gives Americans making less than $75,000 a year a measly $600, which Speaker Pelosi called “significant” (while she called $1,000+ in bonuses handed out by businesses after the tax cuts were passed and implemented “crumbs”).
$600 is all you plebs are worth to the people who are supposed to serve us. $600 is all these people, who believe you should be locked down and without a job, think you should get. After 9 months of lockdowns, a total of $1800 per American (making up to a certain amount, that is) has been given to the American people who are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and in some cases, their lives.
Meanwhile, take a look at what Congress chooses to help fund instead of struggling Americans:
And this is just regarding SOME spending in this $1.4 trillion bill. There is other asinine crap like investigating the 1908 Springfield Race Riot, regulations regarding race horses, funds for a museum offering “programming, education, exhibitions” on… “the life, art, history, and culture of women,” as well as some sections about discouraging teenagers from drinking and having sex (which is rather puzzling, seeing as Democrats make plenty of profit off of pregnant teenage girls too scared to consider anything other than an abortion), and educating “consumers about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame.”
Oh, and by the way, it gives $1,800 to households with illegal immigrants, so even they get more money than Americans do.
Like I mentioned earlier, this is an over 5,000-page bill, written shortly before it was passed, and I can guarantee this is just the tip of the ice berg for this insane bill.
But unlike that 5,000-page, nearly 1.4 million-word bill, I only need but one page and a few words to say to The Party: Screw you. And believe me, I SERIOUSLY want to use far stronger words than that. The English language doesn’t have enough words for me to describe how repulsed and enraged I am at Congress.
All of this spending for foreign nations and foreign and domestic programs and all Congress could give a damn about giving to Americans is $600? $900B was used for COVID relief. 900 billion divided by 330 million people in America amounts to more than $2,700 per American, which is more than what even President Trump was asking for. If Americans are getting $600, where is the other $2,100?
And, of course, idiot “small-government conservatives” like Rep. Jim Jordan have the gall to say “the best COVID relief is a job.” Are you kidding me? I don’t disagree, in general, but is this guy so divorced from reality that he has forgotten that MULTIPLE STATES HAVE ORDERED LOCKDOWNS THAT HAVE SHUTTERED BUSINESSES AND LED TO MILLIONS OF LAYOFFS?!
It’s because of idiots like Jordan that conservatives are considered heartless and outright stupid.
In just the first 5 weeks, nearly 27 million people lost their jobs. Due to the recent lockdowns in states like New York and California (as well as other states), we are still seeing 800,000+ unemployment claims every month and these tyrants don’t appear to be willing to let go of their chokehold on their residents any time soon.
Yeah, I would agree that the best COVID relief would be a job, but think about this for a second, Jimmy: WHY WOULD WE EVEN NEED COVID RELIEF IF JOBS WERE SO WIDELY AVAILABLE?! The very REASON Americans are asking for a handout here is not because they are lazy and don’t want to work – it’s because they have been FORCED not to work by their local and state governments, depending on their state.
This is not the time to be going like “get a job, hippie.” If the government is going to force Americans to not work, the LEAST they can do is subsidize them. This is not a “socialist” take, but a common sense one. The socialism comes in the form of forcing Americans to not work. The socialism comes in the form of reckless spending and subsidizing of PAKISTANI TRANNIES.
This omnibus bill reeks of America Last, and many people in The Party simply do not care.
Now, you might be asking why I’m even calling them “The Party.” It’s because this presidential election has taught me something valuable: there is virtually no difference whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans. I had a feeling this was the case sometimes, as I have spoken out against establishment Republicans and RINOs like Mitt Romney, but I see that the problem is considerably more widespread than I originally thought it was, if people like Gov. Kemp and his SecState are any indication (among others).
President Trump enjoys overwhelming support from voters who are Republicans, but not from the GOP itself. The GOP Chair and many other GOP politicians either stand in direct and open opposition to him or do so in secret, appearing to be supportive of him from the outside. There are only a handful of elected Republicans that I can actually consider to be at least fairly conservative and care about the American people. The rest are so in-line with Democrats that they may as well all belong to the same party.
Which is why I no longer care to differentiate between the “two” parties. They may have different names, but their goals are the same: screwing the American people and making sure they are on top and remain there. They might disagree as to what speed to go in accordance with this goal, but that’s where the differences end.
Oh, and speaking of the election, the omnibus bill includes a challenge to the presidential elections in BELARUS due to some of the same election shenanigans that were present in the U.S. election, such as early voting ballot stuffing, destruction of ballots, pressuring of poll workers, etc. So these are things that we would not tolerate in foreign elections, but when they happen here, particularly to benefit The Party’s preferred candidate, we are absolutely okay with it. What a joke.
These people have not suffered the consequences of their legislations – by design. Not one of them was subjected to the Obamacare mandates when they passed them. Not one of them is subjected to suffering what they put people through. They still get their paychecks. They don’t have to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. They don’t have to worry about facing eviction.
They don’t have to worry about how they’re going to pay for all these programs, foreign and domestic. Of course, eventually, we’ll run out of money, but they will run out of money only after we do.
Now, a liberal might argue “you didn’t seem to mind too much about government spending while Trump is in office, but now that Biden will be POTUS (which is arguable), you want to whine about government spending?” The difference between spending during the Trump economy and spending during the Leftist economy (such as Obama’s economy and this current one which has shuttered businesses and led to layoffs) is that a Trump economy is healthy and strong enough to be able to pay for a lot of the spending. Arguably, the government was still spending more than they should (and I have written about that), but with a healthy economy, there is less reason to worry about government spending. We do not have a healthy economy right now, though, thanks to Leftist politicians and RINO cowards (people who usually make up “The Party”).
The economy is suffering right now because of this and this is the biggest spending bill to date. This is how countries collapse.
And in the meantime, with these politicians not giving a rat’s ass about the future, all they can think to give struggling Americans is $600. It’s like they were so excited about all this spending that they nearly forgot they have to provide something to the American people, so they just threw in a number that is not big but not extremely and insultingly low. And yet, they still came up with an extremely and insultingly low number.
I suppose they wanted to give enough money for people to buy the new PS5, since they cost around $600. Nowhere near enough to help people pay their rent and bills (including electricity), but enough to let them get a new console and maybe a game or two.
These people hate you and they have no qualms about showing it. They pretend as though they are dissatisfied with this bill, but if they truly were, they would not have passed it, particularly with such overwhelming support for it.
These politicians are among the biggest reason Trump was elected in the first place. The President is one of only a handful of people in Washington D.C. (and in elected office in general) who actually give a damn about America and Americans. It’s no wonder, then, that they have worked so far to undermine him at every turn and outright cheat and break the law to steal a re-election he was going to win handily without that.
I can only hope that God will provide a way for us to undo the damage these evil bastards have been doing for decades and continue to do without a care in the world.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
I have the feeling that, after contracting the virus back in late March, and having been hospitalized and placed in ICU as a result, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had quite the scare about it, and as a result, decided to play Stalin throughout the pandemic, ordering lockdown after lockdown, as though they are effective at any capacity. And most recently, BoJo has ordered yet another lockdown, stricter than all the others, to be placed on London and most of southeast England, following the finding of a “new version” of the Chinese coronavirus.
According to the NYT, BoJo “abruptly reversed course on Saturday and imposed a wholesale lockdown on London and most of England’s southeast, banning Christmas-season gatherings beyond individual households,” following “evidence of a [Chinese coronavirus] variant first detected several weeks ago in southeast England, which the prime minister asserted was as much as 70 percent more transmissible than previous versions.”
BoJo said in his announcement back on Saturday: “When the virus changes its method of attack, we must change our method of defense. We have to act on information as we have it because this is now spreading very fast.”
What change in method of defense? This is the third lockdown imposed in England, and even stricter than the others, so what’s different about it? It’s trying the same thing, hoping for a different result. And what result is he hoping for? Keeping the virus from spreading altogether? That is quite literally impossible, particularly at this stage. As far as slowing it down goes, lockdowns have not shown to achieve that goal anywhere in the world. Look at the states where lockdowns were imposed as opposed to where lockdowns were not imposed. Look at the states where the governments have imposed draconian measures on its residents (which, of course, the government officials are not at all obligated to follow themselves) versus the states where logic and reason and evidence have won out.
A third, even stricter lockdown does nothing but hurt the residents of London and southeast England, which is why it’s not at all surprising to see what basically amounts to a World War-style exodus from the city.
According to the NY Post, the residents of London took to the streets en masse, rushing to escape the city before the new lockdown measures took effect, leading to traffic congestions and the city’s train stations being comparable to “war zones”, according to The UK Sun.
I mean, look at the picture above and tell me if BoJo’s draconian measures would be helpful in fighting this new variant of the Chinese coronavirus. There are other pictures and videos, of course, but I think you get the gist.
And by the way, I do not at all blame the residents of London for doing this. I’m not sharing these pictures to depict Londoners “not doing as they are told” or that they are dumb for it. I share them to depict how radical and insane these measures are. These people KNOW what it means to be locked down. Their freedoms are severely restricted. Their movements are severely restricted.
For crying out loud, Welsh supermarkets have been forced by their government to block off what they consider “non-essential items”, which includes TOYS. Just days before Christmas and the Welsh government made the fantastic and obviously data-driven decision to ban the sale of TOYS. Right, because we all know how quickly Barbie spreads the virus.
So I can’t say I blame the residents of London for doing this. I blame the idiotic governments that impose such moronic lockdowns which lead to people doing this kind of thing. I don’t doubt that the virus is being spread in doing this (and no, masks have not shown to be effective) and it will lead to the exact opposite of what BoJo had seemingly wanted. But this is what happens when you impose authoritarian measures on people: they want to leave.
You always hear of stories from immigrants about how much they wanted to leave their countries/fought to leave their countries. It’s not because they hold no love for them or anything of the sort, but because they want to seek better lives in freer places.
Wikipedia quite literally has a list of people who defected from the Soviet Union and countries in the Eastern Bloc, starting with George Balanchine, a Russian choreographer who defected to the Weimar Republic in 1924, and ending (at least pre-dissolution of the USSR) with Vitali Vitaliev, a Ukrainian author who defected to the UK in 1990. This list also includes the famous ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov.
Where there is authoritarianism, people tend to want to flee from those places. Even with less extreme examples, such as legal immigration from Latin America to the U.S., you can see that the people leaving those countries consider their home countries to be more authoritarian in nature than the U.S., and thus, choose to leave for America (at least, that’s the case for some immigrants).
So, again, it’s not surprising to see Londoners seeking to flee London: the city’s freedoms are being restricted even further by an oppressive regime.
One might argue that the lockdowns are “good” for people and that it’s “for their safety”, but then why do we not follow that up by advocating for everyone to be placed in cages 24/7? They won’t run into anything that would compromise their safety then, right? So long as there is someone (likely from the government) to feed them and give them water, then it’s ok, right? Of course, the cage itself would lead people to suffer in their health (physical and mental) due to extreme isolation and the need to defecate *somewhere*, but the outside world also offers a lot of dangerous situations, so you reach an impasse in terms of maintaining safety for these people.
We cannot pretend as though life can be devoid of risks. Children go to school despite the risk of things like influenza and other illnesses. Adults go to work despite the risk of contracting a disease. Scientists experiment despite the risk of things going wrong. Mechanics work despite the risk of electrocution or getting crushed by a car. Taxi drivers work despite the risk of car crashes. People walk outside despite the risk of getting run over, kidnapped, mugged, raped, or killed.
The point is to MINIMIZE the risks, not to futilely seek to eliminate those risks. Strict lockdowns attempt to do the latter, giving no mind to what they risk in return.
Lockdowns means people don’t work and businesses suffer; that means the economy suffers; that means people suffer. Families run into financial problems, mental and physical problems, and problems with having food to eat and a place to stay. Being locked down means being subject to a slow financial death. Well, at least for those of us who are not the 1%, seeing as they tend to benefit from this kind of thing (in the short-term, at least).
So when BoJo announced that new, even stricter lockdowns would be put into place for London and southeast England, OF COURSE you’re going to see such a massive exodus. These people are fleeing for their LIVES; not out of fear of the virus, but out of fear of the GOVERNMENT – out of fear of TYRANNY.
Whenever new lockdowns are announced anywhere, this is what I think of:
“It’s good for you,” they say as they suffocate you with a pillow.
Despite all this, and likely because of this response, I doubt BoJo or the UK government will learn “hmm, people don’t like this, maybe we should stop doing it.” Tyrants do things for “the greater good” of people, regardless of how many bodies they leave behind.
People must continuously fight for their freedoms, everywhere. Else, they risk losing everything, and it’s hard to get it back.
2 Corinthians 3:17
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
Recently, Trump adviser Peter Navarro issued a report which he titled: “The Immaculate Deception: Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities.” In this report, Navarro outlines the various ways in which Democrats, in some cases at the behest of Republicans, conspired and coordinated to, if not outright steal the election, at least stack the deck against President Trump.
It’s a lengthy report – far too long for me to cover everything with great detail here – so I will try my best to summarize every important point and keep my explanations/opinions fairly short and succinct, because just about everything here is important and I do not want to make this article unbearably long.
Navarro begins by summarizing the findings that he would later go into further detail: how each of the six states which questionably swung for Biden used very different and egregious tactics to ensure the outcome that we all saw.
He notes six key dimensions of irregularities which occurred, to one capacity or another, in most if not all of the six states, which are in the following table:
As you can see, there is some or wide-spread evidence of each of these dimensions in all the states, though varying in how they show up. There is wide-spread evidence of ballot mishandling in every swing state except for Arizona, and there is wide-spread evidence of significant statistical anomalies in every state except Pennsylvania.
Now, for a very brief opinion portion, I wonder why Pennsylvania does not show even some statistical anomaly, considering that Trump’s lead was the biggest in this state out of the six, and it somehow and improbably utterly vanished by the end of it. That was the kind of lead that was statistically impossible to overcome, a point which is even admitted to by those in the fake news media, at least back on election night when Trump was still ahead by over half a million votes.
It was statistically impossible for Joe Biden to erase that lead to the point of winning, but Navarro is likely talking about things apart from the statistical likelihood of overcoming massive deficits.
At any rate, the second table that Navarro shows is this one:
As you can see, by midnight on election day, Trump held quite sizable leads in four states: Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The only two swing states that are not here are Arizona and Nevada, because Biden held a lead in those states by midnight of election night, with 30,000 in Nevada and less than 150,000 in Arizona (though there is plenty of reason to doubt that Biden should have “won” those two states either).
Perhaps what is most important to note is the third table Navarro shares, which takes the first one about the six dimensions of election irregularities and adds the figures of Biden’s “victory” margin and the possible illegal ballots:
As you can see, in just about every state (except Michigan because the state government illegally wiped the voting machines a couple of days after the election was “completed”), Biden’s margin of “victory” is considerably smaller than the amount of possible illegal ballots in each state. Which is why Navarro belabors the following point: “The ballots that have come into question because of the identified election irregularities are more than sufficient to swing the outcome in favor of President Trump should even a relatively small portion of these ballots be ruled illegal.”
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already said that those 200,000 votes are illegal and should not be counted, so in theory, that SHOULD lead to Trump taking Wisconsin, though for that to happen, the state’s Legislature (which is controlled by Republicans), has to step in and give the state’s electoral votes to Trump (and they are within their constitutional authority to do so, as I have already outlined in a previous article).
The other states should all do the same (it’s already egregious that this much was allowed to occur) and throw away those illegal ballots.
At any rate, Navarro then goes into further detail regarding each dimension that he describes, beginning with outright voter fraud, which constitutes: bribery, fake ballot manufacturing & destruction of legally cast real ballots, indefinitely confined voter abuses (as in, people who said they could not physically show up to vote and thus requested absentee ballots, but were later proven to have been able to physically show up to vote in states where indefinite confinement is the only excuse for not showing up to vote), ineligible voters & voters who voted in multiple states, dead voters & ghost voters, counting ballots multiple times, and illegal out-of-state voters.
Navarro shows that there is evidence of every state doing at least two of those things. There is wide-spread evidence of bribery in Arizona and Nevada; wide-spread evidence of fake ballot manufacturing, etc. in Arizona and Georgia and at least some evidence of it in Nevada and Pennsylvania; wide-spread evidence of indefinitely confined voter abuses in Wisconsin and some evidence of it in Georgia and Pennsylvania; wide-spread evidence of ineligible voters in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada; wide-spread evidence of dead voters in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, with some evidence of it in Michigan and Pennsylvania; wide-spread evidence of repeated counting of individual ballots in Wisconsin, with some evidence of it in Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania; and finally, wide-spread evidence of illegal out-of-state voters casting ballots in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, with some evidence of it in Pennsylvania, as you can see in this table:
This is just ONE dimension of election irregularities out of six, and I am already sick with the corruption and blatant attempt of theft of this presidential election.
And I know that Leftists will conveniently say “there is no evidence of voter fraud”, which is frankly an absolute laugh after hearing for the last four years about how “Trump colluded with Russia” and that there’s “mountains of evidence” of it, but unlike those blatant liars, there actually IS mountains of evidence of voter fraud here.
Navarro’s report says: “Evidence used to conduct this assessment includes more than 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings, thousands of affidavits and declarations, testimony in a variety of state venues, published analyses by think tanks and legal centers, videos and photos, public comments, and extensive press coverage.”
All the Left ever had regarding Russian collusion was the debunked Steele dossier (which was oppo research by the Clinton campaign), the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr. and a Russian lawyer who was not connected with the Kremlin at all and basically lobbied Don Jr. about a man wrongfully imprisoned in Russia, and a slew of promises by pundits and politicians about how “Mueller had the goods” without any substantial evidence to back up those claims.
So no, these are not the actions by a sore loser; they are the actions by a clear and rightful winner who KNOWS has been cheated and backstabbed by a number of people who wish to see him gone for the sake of their elitist establishment.
At any rate, Navarro then goes into more detail about each of the items in the dimensions, such as the bribery of Native Americans by the Biden campaign to trade their ballots for “Visa gift cards, jewelry, and other ‘swag,'” as well as the fake ballot manufacturing/destruction of legally cast real ballots, citing a sworn affidavit by a truck driver who alleged to have “picked up large crates of ballots in New York and delivered them to a polling location in Pennsylvania.” This same point could be made regarding out-of-state voting.
He also points to the most flagrant example of fake ballot manufacturing happening in Georgia, where poll watchers and observers were asked to leave after a suspicious water leak, and that once the room was cleared, several election officials went on to pull out large boxes and suitcases filled with ballots from underneath their tables. The fake news media, after video of this came out, went on to say “nothing to see here, move along, this is routine and normal,” which is nothing but b.s.
I could go on and on with plenty of examples for each item in each subsequent dimension, but Navarro’s report is better for giving you knowledge about that than this article. His report is rather lengthy, as well it should be since he is detailing a lot of election irregularities that helped sway the election for Biden, but it’s definitely worth a read. There are some elements in this report that even I did not fully know about and served to only further make my blood boil at how disgusting the Left is, and how enraging some Republicans in these states have been.
But at any rate, no one should be considering Biden to be President-elect because he is neither legitimate nor actually President-elect. The rightful winner of this election, by a country mile, is President Trump and he is the one we should be seeing in the White House for the next four years. Anything apart from that is a complete abortion of justice and the death of this Republic.
Shame on Mitch McConnell for being so eager to get rid of Trump and shame on the Republicans who have fooled us into thinking they were worthy of wielding the power that they do. The Democrats, I frankly expected this sort of behavior, but that does not mean that they should benefit from clear rigging and thievery of this election – they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and thrown into prison, if not made to suffer the penalty of treason.
I pray to God that we will see the rightful president be inaugurated January 20th and that we purge the establishment far more aggressively from now on. I refuse to allow this country to fall to cheating tyrants.
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
One aspect of Leftists changing culture is mandating employees of companies and even government departments to undergo some sort of “training” in order to further indoctrinate employees whom may not have been sufficiently indoctrinated at colleges. Often times, what they do is force employees to undergo “unconscious bias training” which is just “white people bad” training.
However, as with many other ideas the Left comes up with, there is no evidence that it works, and in some cases, it has utterly backfired. As a result of this, the British government, surprisingly enough (and I will share why this is surprising in a moment), will no longer require its civil servants to undergo this training, citing such lack of evidence.
On Tuesday, the BBC reported that Cabinet Officer minister Julia Lopez wrote a statement regarding this topic, saying that “unconscious bias training does not achieve its intended aims. It will therefore be phased out in the civil service.”
She added that they “encourage other public sector employers to do likewise.”
The BBC reported: “The government says it is ‘determined to eliminate discrimination in the workplace,’ but unconscious bias training is the wrong approach. The Government Equalities Office says there has been ‘no evidence’ that the training improved workplace equality. Among the researchers cited is psychologist Patrick Forscher, who examined more than 400 studies on unconscious bias. He said that few studies measured changes over time, and among ‘the most robust of those that did’, the findings suggested ‘changes in implicit bias don’t last’. Dr. Forscher said such training had too often been used by employers as a ‘catch all’, which failed to really tackle the specific barriers for different groups.”
Psychologist Dr. Stuart Ritchie also told the BBC that there was “nowhere near robust evidence” to suggest that this kind of training positively changed behavior, adding that it really was just used to “placate worries” instead of actually trying to reduce racial bias.
And that actually plays into why this is so surprising in the first place. When was the last time you heard of a government entity getting rid of a program because there wasn’t evidence that it worked? If the government had a habit of getting rid of things that didn’t work, there would be no Leftist policies in place in any country whatsoever.
I don’t doubt that there is no evidence that this “racial bias” training doesn’t work or that it even backfires. The very crux of it is that white people have systematically (not systemically) and unconsciously subjugated non-white people and hold implicit racial biases against them. They blame just about everything on capitalism, but most importantly, on white people.
They hold that the world sees the injustices that it sees because of white colonizers, slave traders and unconsciously biased tyrants in government who constantly, if unwittingly, put minorities down. They are utterly devoid of any knowledge of history and pretend as though white people have never been subject to slavery or persecution either (and often conveniently forget that Africans often enslaved fellow Africans and sold them to the white slave traders to send to the Americas), but that’s just the way they think.
As a result, that is bound to create anti-white sentiment, which I’m willing to bet is what they are talking about when they say that the training tends to backfire. Instead of leading to less discrimination for black people (and other minorities), it just creates more discrimination for white people.
Now, the woke don’t exactly care, and would consider such a result to be a good and just thing, to “get back at white people whom have perpetrated discrimination and hatred for centuries”, but for anyone with a brain, this obviously would present a problem. The outward objective of that “unconscious bias training” is supposedly to reduce discrimination, and that doesn’t happen by creating more of it directed towards white people.
But while that may be the case, it’s still odd and surprising to see the British government taking this kind of step.
Now, obviously, those who profit from these ridiculous training sessions are very much against this. Halima Begum, chief executive of a “race equality” think tank, told the BBC that the government “mustn’t backtrack on anti-racism training,” insisting that if the government was going to make changes, they should replace that training with something that would address “ingrained views” as well as “fair pay, progression and work practices.”
The obvious problem with that is that, at least according to Dr. Forscher, that very variety in subject matters is a big reason as to why the training is not effective (there are other reasons, of course, such as the fact that it’s very explicitly against white people and blames white people for everything, like I already mentioned). To quote the BBC again: “Dr. Forscher said such training had too often been used by employers as a ‘catch all,” meaning that the training is put together very sloppily with various talking points that address very dissimilar things.
The training doesn’t work because, among many other reasons, it encompasses too many varied things. Similar to the BLM website’s “About Us” page which used to include a whole bunch of far-Left, LGBT propaganda stuff, despite the fact that the vast majority of black people do not tend to support the LGBT agenda.
But again, despite all of that, it is extremely odd that the British government would get rid of this, particularly since it is a popular agenda item for Leftists and people in the fake news media. Which is why I can hardly trust that the British government will stick with this. No doubt, they will face pushback for this, to some degree or another, and such pushback could force the British government’s hand to undo this action. After all, Boris Johnson isn’t exactly someone who is known for having backbone in the face of pressure and pushback.
However, even in spite of that, I hope that logical thinking which has led to this canceling of that ridiculous training continues throughout various governments with regards to other areas. Keep in mind that the same government entity which dropped this training because of lack of evidence that it worked is also going into its THIRD nationwide lockdown over the Chinese coronavirus, despite the lack of evidence that lockdowns work (and despite the fact that if you think you need more than one lockdown, that should tell you how effective they even are).
“Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.”
Allow me to better explain what I say in that title. I’m not saying that the students support churches being allowed to reopen – they very much want them closed, at least most of them do. I am saying, however, that they recognize, to some extent, that it is hypocritical of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to allow some places to reopen, like college campuses and some businesses, while forcing churches and synagogues to remain closed. So, in all, I am at least glad that they can recognize the hypocrisy of the governor.
At any rate, let’s get to the Campus Reform video (below). In this video, Campus Reform has Addison Smith reporting at, presumably, a New York college (they don’t mention which one).
Smith begins by noting that during this pandemic, particularly during the summer, we have seen plenty of protests (and riots, though he doesn’t mention that) over the death of George Floyd while in police custody, and notes that that was happening while multiple states were simultaneously pushing heavy lockdown restrictions on businesses and other types of gatherings, such as religious gatherings. He then goes on to ask if the protests should have been condemned for being allowed to violate the same orders that other people had to follow, or if they were rightfully exempted.
One of the students said that “You can’t really outright ban the ability to, you know, assembly and protest, but what we believe is that they should’ve, sort of, restricted it in a way… like enforce social distancing.”
So this student believes that, as it is recognized in the constitution, the states cannot outright ban assembly and protest, but the government should have been able to enforce, at the very least, social distancing a bit more. To which I somewhat agree. I do not have an issue with the protests themselves (I have plenty of issue with the riots, of course, since no one has the right to do that), and the protestors have the right to protest. What I have an issue with is the blatant double standard that governors were cool with people not social distancing and, in some cases, not wearing masks (both Schumer and Lightfoot were seen not wearing masks during a celebration following Biden’s “win”), saying that those gatherings are allowed because of the purpose of the gathering being important to those people or important to society.
Gathering for worship is also important for the people who do so/desire to do so, and it definitely is also important to society since Psalm 33:12 says: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His inheritance!” A nation which turns its back to God is not a nation blessed by God, so for the sake of the American society, it is important that we worship God, and part of that means being allowed to do so in churches. No, it is not necessary for people to worship God in churches, as a church is wherever at least two Christians gather to worship, but corporate worship of God is considerably better when done in one’s local church building.
The protesters have the right to protest, as it is detailed in the First Amendment. The First Amendment also recognizes freedom of religion, and restricting church gatherings in this way is not only hypocritical but also a restriction of people’s First Amendment rights. If this were a disease like the plague, Christians would know to take the best precautions available and would be willing to forego going to church so as to not needlessly gather. But this virus is nowhere near as deadly as many claim it is, with a 99.97% survival rate for most people. There are more dangerous things out there, but we are willing to go to church anyway despite those risks. So why can’t we be allowed to go to church over the Chinese coronavirus, particularly when others are allowed to gather, in massive numbers, to protest the death of a very troubled man?
This is a constant theme throughout this article and even throughout the overarching argument. The woman who answers after the first student says that the protesters were “rightfully exempted”, but even she ultimately recognizes that if they are allowed to physically attend college, that people should be allowed to go to church.
Another student said: “I think… you should listen to the rules but I also think… if you really believe in what you say and you think… you’re, uh, being treated unfairly, I do think there is maybe some wiggle room with that.”
I also somewhat agree with this student. I think people should listen to the rules (when they make sense, at least), but it is still hypocritical to allow people who say they are being treated unfairly to be allowed so much wiggle room so as to outright JUSTIFY AND DEFEND the very actions which have been disparaged when done by others.
Before the George Floyd protests and riots, there were anti-lockdown protests. The Left disparaged and attacked those protesters, saying they were putting themselves and others at risk by gathering in such a way, even if they were wearing masks (and many of them were). The George Floyd protesters did pretty much the same exact thing, but because it was a favorable narrative to the Left, they were allowed to happen.
I don’t mind following the rules (that make sense), but you can’t expect me to be willing to just accept such blatant double standards. If anti-lockdown protesters aren’t allowed to protest, then neither are George Floyd protesters. If George Floyd protesters are allowed to protest, then so are anti-lockdown protesters.
And according to this kid’s line of thinking, if Christians gather because we believe in what we are saying and because we believe we are being treated unfairly (and we are in many places), then there should be allowed some wiggle room in the rules to allow us to gather together for our cause.
Humans don’t tend to like injustice when we see it. It’s why we have gotten rid of slavery. It’s why we have done away with segregation (though the woke people out there seem to be, at best inadvertently, wanting to go back to segregation of the races for the “benefit” of black people). It’s why looking at Joe Biden be illegitimately called President-elect infuriates me to no end.
Protesters are allowed to protest (not riot, and don’t let anyone tell you there is no difference); the cause should not be what determines whether one kind of protest is allowed and another disallowed.
At any rate, the woman who earlier said the George Floyd protests were “rightfully exempt” also went on to say: “I think the reason for pandemic lockdown is because people are dying and, like, prioritizing the group of people dying that includes white people versus just black people is… I think you kind of have to put pandemic regulations on the same level as protesting for George Floyd.”
Now, I don’t know what her point is in bringing up the white people vs. the black people in relations to the Chinese virus, but basically she is saying that protesting for George Floyd is just as important as the regulations, meaning that the regulations should not prevent those protests.
But again, how is it fair to allow the George Floyd protests over the anti-lockdown protests or the church gatherings? Why is it okay for one group of people to gather for one reason, but another group of people cannot be allowed to gather for a different reason?
And if the protests and regulations are important, and the regulations exist because “people are dying” then doesn’t that mean that allowing the protests to happen means those are acceptable deaths? Do their lives no longer matter in terms of protecting them from the virus because they want to go out and protest what they perceive to be racial injustice?
Of course, the vast majority of the protesters will live because the virus is very survivable, but that’s not a point liberals tend to make. When talking about the virus, they view it strictly through the lens of it being deadly (thanks in part to Cuomo himself saying that “the virus is death” in one of his press conferences). So if the virus is so deadly, then why allow for “grieving black people” to gather and protest, risking catching this deadly virus?
When the protesters are allowed to protest, that means that their right to protest supersedes the lockdown orders. It’s not true, at all, that they are “on the same level”. Lockdown orders and protests are antithetical to one another, and when one is prioritized over another, that leaves an imbalance. By their very definitions, they cannot be on the same level.
It’d be like saying that planes are allowed to fly, but can’t be allowed to take off. If you’re allowing the planes to fly, by definition, you have to disregard the take-off restrictions.
At any rate, getting to the question of Cuomo banning religious gatherings but allowing other things like liquor stores and other businesses to open, many students noted how hypocritical Cuomo was and how wrong it was for him to do that.
One of the students pressed the issue of thinking about others and not just ourselves, which does not really answer Smith’s question and does not answer why churches should be closed but George Floyd protests should be allowed to happen. Again, if the virus is as deadly as they say it is and we should be thinking about others and not just ourselves, then why allow protesters to gather? Don’t their lives matter? Doesn’t their safety matter? Are they selfishly thinking about only themselves when they gather in such a way? And if not, then why am I thinking about only myself for wanting to go to church but they aren’t only thinking about themselves for wanting to protest? Why is it different for the two situations?
If it’s because of the cause, that’s an awful reason. It means that only *certain* kinds of people have rights and others do not. It’s the Animal Farm quote of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It’s bullcrap inequality and anyone with a brain could recognize that.
The cause of “racial injustice” should not supersede my cause of worshipping the Lord and growing His Kingdom. The cause of Joe Biden’s “victory” should not supersede my cause of wanting to reopen so that people don’t starve to death.
Now, interestingly enough, that very same student also went on to say that the governments should NOT be forcing churches to close, and it should be up to the churches themselves whether or not they wish to close or remain open, which I 100% agree with. If a church’s leadership thinks that there is a great risk for the people in the congregation (one of the churches I used to frequent in Florida was almost entirely comprised of older people, so I suspect they chose to close down at least for a while), then they have every right to decide to close. But that decision should not be taken away from them. If a church’s leadership does not think that there is great risk to the congregation, and the community around them, then they should be allowed to remain open.
It's about weighing the risks versus the benefits, and that decision should be left up to church leadership, not the government, regardless of whether or not they are well-meaning.
To end things, since this article is long enough as it is, Smith asked if Cuomo overstepped the boundaries of his power, and the students pretty much all agreed, and that churches have the right to remain open with proper Chinese virus guidelines.
So I am glad to see that the students of this New York college (whichever one it is) can recognize that, even if they still support lockdowns, churches should not be forced to close down particularly when other things such as college campuses and businesses are allowed to reopen.
Here’s hoping they further develop their reasoning skills and come to recognize how utterly hypocritical and damaging the Leftist ideology is.
“Blessed are the people of whom this is so; blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.”
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...