One of the many lies the fake news media often tells is that suburban women in America are approving less and less of President Trump, leaving the fake news reporters to believe that Trump is “finished” and will be soundly defeated come next November. Considering how wrong they have been about so many other things and considering how many other news reports should have “finished” Trump long before any of this, I’m surprised they still buy the crap they are selling. Drug dealers aren’t supposed to use their supply, but these people are constantly inundated in the garbage that they spew, so they believe it.
But in any case, fake news polls have tried to suggest that Trump is losing ground fast with suburban women, a demographic that usually leans Republican. However, this is far from the truth.
According to a recent report from OpenSecrets.org, President Trump has more suburban women donating to him than any of the 2020 Democrat candidates.
As you can see, President Trump tops the list of both Suburban Women Donors at 10,534, with Kamala Harris coming in behind him with almost 3,000 less donors, then Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Beto (who is no longer running), Crazy Bernie, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro and finally, Tulsi Gabbard.
He also tops the list of total contributions from suburban women donors at $8,293,135. Grace Haley, a researcher working for a research group that tracks money in American politics, wrote: “Suburban women, who power a significant electoral battleground, are a key demographic for 2020. Since Trump’s inauguration, more than 7,000 women in suburban districts have given large-dollar contributions to his campaign. That totals $8 million, the most of all candidates.”
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner noted that in 2016, 28% of Trump’s “itemized contributions” were from women. For 2020, that number stands at 35%.
Now, when it comes to women in general, the President ranks 5th in donations out of all candidates at $15.1 million, behind Crazy Bernie ($17.1 million), Fauxcahontas, Mayor Pete, and Kamala Harris. But that’s just on paper.
According to OpenSecrets.org, “Campaigns are not required to itemize donations of $200 or less, so we do not have demographic information about Trump’s small donors giving to his joint fundraising committees with the Republican National Committee, Trump Victory and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. An estimated 59% of Trump’s donations are from small-donors, so Trump’s contributions from women are most certainly higher than $15 million. Trump’s totals are underestimated more than the other candidates. Because Democrats are relying on ActBlue and the Republicans are not relying on the Republican equivalent WinRed as significantly, we only have most (not all) donor demographic data for Democratic small-dollar donors.”
In other words, while the President’s total from large-donor contributions puts him in 5th place, that only contributes to about 40% of his total contributions. He easily could be far higher, maybe even number one among women, if small-donor contributions were taken into account and recorded.
But even if we don’t know for sure just how much more money women have been giving Trump, one thing is for sure: he is not in 5th place and he has accrued more than $15 million from women in America.
Amy Kremer, chairwoman of Women for America First and co-founder and chairwoman of Women for Trump PAC, told Breitbart News that it’s “no surprise that women are contributing to the president’s campaign” because many women in the suburbs have families to take care of. “Women are focused on issues that impact our children and our families and President Trump is delivering results.” She also added that when women donate to him, “it’s an easy donation when you know what you are going to get in return and this president has followed through on his promises, and his policies have been good for women and their families.”
Open Secrets also made sure to mention that the Trump campaign acknowledges that suburban women often support the President more than reported because “the polling data does not account for suburban women who favor Trump but do not feel comfortable publicly saying so.”
This is generally true about many other things and within other demographics. Often times, people believe that Trump is such a polarizing figure that they do not wish to express support for him to media pollsters out of fear of shaming or persecution, so they withhold that support, either saying they are undecided, do not support him at all or say they support him but not too strongly.
This tends to happen because the media and the Democrats have been so toxic about anyone supporting Trump that people figure it’s better to keep your mouth shut or not express outward support for Trump and stay out of unnecessary conflicts. Most people just want to live their lives undisturbed by hateful people, so they support Trump because he’s not a nutbag like the rest of the Democrats, but won’t publicly admit it out of fear of being verbally or physically attacked or maligned.
But while people might be fearful of publicly supporting the President, they certainly show their support come election time or when it comes to donations. It’s part of the reason some ill-intending Leftists have tried to dox Trump donors because many won’t outright state they support Trump but still support him anyway and these hateful bigots can’t bear the thought of living next to a Trump supporter.
However, regardless of the circus that the Democrats orchestrate in the impeachment hearings (and oh boy, are witnessing some prime circus material here with Schiff establishing different questioning rules for Democrats and Republicans and with one of Schiff’s star witnesses admitting that he thinks Burisma should be investigated, which is what Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for), regardless of what the media tries to spin out of it and what the media tries to report (it started with quid pro quo but when there was clearly no evidence to support it, they shifted to “bribery” which is equally as lacking in evidence), many people support President Trump.
And one couldn’t blame them when the alternatives are a decrepit old man yelling at clouds, a communist pushing for the increasingly unpopular Medicare for All (Rasmussen reports that only 39% of likely voters support the plan, which is far lower than it was just a couple months ago), a fake Indian, and a self-righteous fake Christian who blames God for “making him” gay. One can’t blame them when all of these people have no issue with giving free healthcare to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND DECRIMINALIZING BORDER CROSSINGS!
Like Kremer said, suburban women want what’s best for their families and will vote and donate accordingly. Back-breaking tax increases to pay for everything on the socialist wish list is not what’s best for families and children. Reduction of civil liberties and constitutional rights of free speech and bearing arms are not what’s best for families and children. Putting America Last is not what’s best for families and children.
Trump delivers the opposite (where he can, considering the little support he gets from Congressional Republicans) and advocates putting America First.
Doing that, and more importantly, returning to God, are what’s best for families and children, not to mention the whole of the country.
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Mainstream Media believes it holds a monopoly on public opinion, being able to shape it in whatever way they wish. They couldn’t be more wrong, as example after example shows, such as public sentiment regarding President Trump (they wish America hated him as much as they do). But within their highly-biased reporting is the desire to be as “woke” as humanly possible, despite how much of a detriment to civilized society that may be.
So when they come out in favor of “woke” things such as allowing for biological males who identify as females to compete against biological women who actually are women, they expect most people to fall in line with that thought and those who do not ought to be publicly shamed as being “transphobic” and “bigoted”.
However, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, public sentiment is not with the media on this matter.
According to the poll, 51% of U.S. adults opposed “allowing athletes compete on the basis of their gender identity, including biological males who participate in women’s and girls’ sports.” Only 29% supported the idea of transgenders competing in sports teams of the gender they identify with and 20% said they were undecided.
This is fairly similar to a poll back in June that showed 28% supported the idea of transgenders competing in sports teams of their “identified” gender and 54% were opposed.
I do have a problem with the fact that it’s not quite as big a margin as I think it should be, but it’s still nowhere close to what the Left would want it to be.
Simply put, it gives men an unfair advantage to compete against girls simply by pretending to be women. Men are, on average, physically superior to women and develop stronger bodies as they grow up.
Most people recognize this biological fact, including former tennis player and openly gay activist Maria Navratilova. I’ve already written more extensively about where she stands on the issue of transgender sports players, but she acknowledges the inarguable fact that men are physically stronger than women and have an athletic advantage.
It’s not “transphobic” to think this way. It’s pure science. Watch any NBA game versus any WNBA game. Watch any men’s soccer game versus any women’s soccer game. You will find that the men tend to be faster than the women, are capable for more athletic feats than women (most male basketball players can dunk to some degree or another while I can count on one hand the amount of female basketball players that can dunk to any degree) and are overall physically superior to women.
For NBA rookies, one of their biggest challenges is to put on enough muscle to be able to finish at the rim against NBA-level competition, aka against strong and fully-grown men. Players have to be able to put on some muscle and strength in order to compete. Look at the following pictures of current NBA MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo:
One picture shows Giannis when he was a rookie. Pretty skinny, right? The guy is pretty athletically-gifted, pretty tall and lengthy. But he needed to bulk up a little to be able to compete at the NBA level against other giants. So, he hit up the gym and is now the reigning MVP and a top-3 player in the NBA.
Do you sincerely think that there is any woman in the WNBA who would be able to beat Giannis 1-on-1 if Giannis is actually trying? I even remember one of the WNBA’s biggest stars, Brittney Griner, who while she is 6’9” but only weighs 205 lbs., claimed that she could beat NBA star Demarcus Cousins, who is 6’11” and 269 lbs. on a 1-on-1 game.
When that news circulated, fellow NBA stars laughed at the idea, not believing Griner to be able to beat Cousins whatsoever. They laughed not because they are “transphobic” or “bigoted” but because they knew that the WNBA star couldn’t hold a candle to the NBA star. He is bigger, stronger and one of the best centers in the NBA (when healthy).
And even in actual cases in which men competed against women, we find tennis matches where men won most of the matches rather handily, as I have noted many times in the past.
But we don’t have to look at professional competitions to know how much of an athletic advantage men have over women. There are many examples in school sports of guys pretending to be girls, competing against girls, and obviously beating said girls.
There is good reason that girls have their own division of sports. There is a reason there is a WNBA, because female basketball players would get destroyed by male basketball players 99 times out of 100. There is a reason there is a Women’s soccer team, because female soccer players would get destroyed by male soccer players 99 times out of 100.
Girls have to have their own divisions to compete against other girls because they have next to no prayer to be able to beat guys in athletic competitions. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen, of course. Even when discussing men vs. women tennis matches, there was one instance in which the woman won. But in every other instance, the male competitor won and pretty easily.
Again, Serena and Venus Williams, some of the best female tennis players of all time, lost to a guy who was ranked outside the top-200 one after the other. That’s not because the guy was more talented than the Williams sisters. I don’t think anyone would argue that that was the case. It was because he was physically superior. Serena Williams herself acknowledged that she hit the ball in ways that would usually be winners against other women but that he got to with rather ease.
Men can kick soccer balls farther and harder than women can. Men can finish at the rim better than women can (this is something even I have done when playing against girls, even though I have zero talent for basketball). Men are physically superior to women. So when a guy competes against a girl, it’s no surprise that he would win. It becomes utterly unfair to the girls in the competition to work so hard and yet fall to someone who is naturally more athletic and physically superior.
Men who compete against women are complete and utter failures and cowards who are too afraid to compete against other men because they know they would fail against other men. I don’t care what they “identify” as, they aren’t women and they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against women.
“If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Veteran’s Day has come and gone, with many of us remembering the heroic struggles our soldiers have had to endure throughout the history of our country in the various wars that America has participated. So, Campus Reform’s Eduardo Neret went to Howard University in Washington D.C. to ask various students if they could think of any war the U.S. has participated in that could be considered a “just” war or a war that we could find justifiable reasons for entering and fighting (video below).
Not one student could come up with any war that they viewed as justified of their own merit. And even when asked if they thought WWII was a justified war for the U.S. to get involved, some students still believed there was no justifiable reason for having entered the conflict.
One student argued: “I don’t believe America fought [WWII] for the just reasons.” Another student said: “I don’t think [WWII] was necessary.”
Although a few students recognized World War II and the Civil War as being justified wars (once they were mentioned after previously having argued that there were no wars that were justified), many still held their ground and argued that no war was justified.
However, I know exactly why it is that many think this way: ignorance.
Now, I’m not trying to insult these kids. I’m not calling them dumb. But they are lacking in knowledge, which is what ignorance is. Why do I think this way? Well, one of the students who actually came around to the idea that World War II was justified gave the following response to having changed her mind:
“[WWII] [was] a good cause for the greater good because at the end of the day we got our freedom, and we are no longer under Great Britain.”
The poor girl is confusing World War II with the Revolutionary War. Either that or she thinks that Great Britain was in Nazi Germany’s place in World War II and we were under their control at the time, but I think the former is more likely.
The ones that continued arguing that WWII was not a justified war, when Pearl Harbor was brought up, said that that was a reason for having entered the war, but not a justified one. Again, I gotta blame ignorance here.
During the early 1940s, the general sentiment regarding World War II was that we shouldn’t enter the war. We had no reason to. Hitler was not a direct threat to us and we were supplying Great Britain with weapons and equipment.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has in their records public opinion in the U.S. about joining the war. When World War II began on September 1st, 1939, Gallup asked the following question: “If it looks within the next few months as if England and France might be defeated, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our troops abroad?” 42% said “yes”, 48% said “no” and 10% said they didn’t have an opinion.
The poll was close between the two answers, but the more popular idea was to stay out of the war, even if England and France were defeated over the next few months. I think the reason for it to have been this close is because if Germany had defeated both so quickly, it might’ve sent people in the U.S. into a panic, considering we were at least friendly towards those two countries, so the next target could’ve either been us or the Soviet Union.
On October 6th, 1939, when Poland was conquered by the Nazis and divided between them and the Soviets, Gallup asked the same question: if Germany defeats England and France, should we declare war on Germany? This time around, we found that only 29% of those surveyed said “yes” and 71% said “no.” We didn’t want to get ourselves involved in what was mostly seen as a European conflict.
On May 10th, 1940, when Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France, Gallup asked if we should declare war on Germany. This time, only 7% said “yes” and 93% said “no”. It should be noted that our military wasn’t exactly in tip-top shape before we entered the war. We only had a little more than 450,000 total military personnel in 1940. In 1941, with the draft having been passed by Congress in late 1940, that number jumped to 1.8 million, then to 3.9m in 1942, 9.1m in 1943, 11.6m in 1944 and 12.2m by the end of the war in 1945.
Our military was in poor shape but once drafting and more spending was implemented, we created the most powerful military the world had ever seen by that point.
By June of 1940, when France surrendered to Germany, public sentiment was still largely against going to war, but those who wished to enter the war and help became more numerous. 35% said they wanted to help England win against Germany, even at the cost of entering the war, and 61% said they should stay out of the conflict altogether.
By the time the draft was implemented in September of 1940, more people wanted to help (52%) than not do anything (44%). By November of 1940, when FDR was elected to his third term as POTUS, 60% wanted to help England and 40% wanted to keep out. In March of 1941, when Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act which authorized Roosevelt to provide Britain with weapons, vehicles and equipment, 67% wanted to help England and 33% wanted to keep out.
On June 22nd, 1941, when Hitler decided to turn his armies towards the Soviet Union, 62% said they wanted to help England and 33% said they wanted to keep out. Even on September 4th, 1941, when a German U-boat submarine attacked an American destroyer, the USS Greer, prompting FDR to authorize US ships to attack German vessels on sight, 64% wanted to help England and 30% wanted to keep out.
By November of 1941, when relations between the U.S. and Japan were at some of their most tense (pre-war, of course) and it looked as though we would fight them, 68% said they wanted to defeat Germany and 28% said they wanted to stay out of the war.
However, on December 7th, 1941, when the Japanese orchestrated a surprise attack on the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where 2403 people died, mostly military personnel and 68 civilians, this served to ignite the spark of war in the American engine. Gallup asked: “Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?”, 91% said “yes”, only 7% said “no” and 3% said they didn’t have any opinion.
This was the 9/11 of 1940s America (and the only attack of this scale on American soil until 9/11) and our country cried for war, cried for justice against Japan. And so, we officially declared war on Japan, which prompted Germany to declare war on the U.S., leading us to join World War II against the Axis powers.
No, we didn’t enter the war out of the kindness of our hearts to help Great Britain to defeat Hitler. Why would we have, when FDR’s New Deal was so similar to Mussolini’s fascism, wherein the welfare state was created and capitalism was put into the hands of the state, instead of the private sector? FDR was every bit the Leftist that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were and sought to socialize our economy. The eventual matchups of FDR-Stalin vs. Hitler-Mussolini (and Hirohito) were matchups of convenience for the time being. They were all Leftist, “government is God” type of leaders. Mussolini praised FDR’s book titled “Looking Forward” and the official Nazi newspaper, “Volkischer Beobachter” praised the New Deal.
We entered World War II not because FDR saw much or any threat in the fascists and Nazis in Europe infecting the rest of the world (he had his own brand of fascism that he was already implementing) but because we were attacked and over 2000 of our servicemen died at the hands of an Imperial Japan that we weren’t exactly getting along with.
When you are attacked, you have to respond. And that’s what we did. Those who would argue that we entered WWII without justifiable reasons are ignorant of history. For the most part, Americans wanted nothing to do with World War II, or to at most help out England without getting involved in the fighting if at all possible. But once it appeared war was imminent, and especially once it was brought to our shores, sentiment changed and we wanted to join and win the war.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Generally speaking, I’m anti-war. If it can be avoided, I would like to not get ourselves involved in wars, particularly in endless wars, which is why I hate that pro-war Republicans and Democrats are in Congress.
However, there are wars that we simply cannot avoid and wars that can be easily justified. The Revolutionary War was a war in which we sought our independence from a tyrannical monarch in Europe. That was justified. The Civil War was a war in which the North sought to both free all slaves in the country and reunite the Union after Southern Democrat States seceded following Lincoln’s election. That was very much justified.
And World War II most certainly can be justified considering both the threat that Hitler posed on the world and the attack that we suffered in Pearl Harbor.
Again, there are wars that are not justified and simply make no sense. But there are those that are essential and there are justifiable reasons for entering. I couldn’t imagine telling Poland that they weren’t justified in fighting Germany when they were being invaded by them.
These children, the ones that said no war was justified and stuck to it after being reminded of World War II, should be educated regarding history. But it’s a sad state of affairs when they are attending a college and have such minimal knowledge of the history of this country.
Ignorance is the real problem here. I would like to mention that every single one of the students asked were African-American, so you would think at the very least, they would’ve brought up the Civil War, since if the North had not done anything about the South, most black people in the country would be slaves (or at least would’ve been for a longer period of time).
But nope. Not one instance could they think of a just war. These kids aren’t being educated; they are being indoctrinated. They were taught that war is generally bad and that America is at fault for most of the conflicts we see today and the world has seen for some time. That no war America gets involved with is justified because we are the bad guys.
This is the sort of nonsensical and untruthful garbage being taught in our education systems today. How is it that these kids, or at least one of them, thinks that World War II was a war where we gained our independence from Britain?! The fact that there even is one person who thinks this is a damning statement about our education system.
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In a statement published by the journal of BioScience, 11,000 “scientists” sounded the alarm about the emergency that is climate change and called on governments and people to take action.
The statement read: “We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency… An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis… The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle… To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live…”
Boy, does that sound like a huge warning and boy does that sound like a massive pile of crap. Funny enough, whoever thinks this is, indeed, a massive pile of crap is absolutely right.
Feel free to explore literally any of the other articles I have written over the last few years regarding climate change to see how utterly ludicrous this is. But for this article, I will allow for others to (sort of) make the arguments for me.
You see, apart from the fact that this statement is ridiculous on its face, clearly only serves the Left’s desires of obtaining and retaining power, and offers little in terms of accurate scientific evidence, there are a number of problems with just about everything surrounding this statement.
First of all, 15,000 “scientists” signed a similar statement back in 2017, giving the same warning about climate change. What happened to the other 4,000 “scientists” this time around? Were they unavailable for comment? Were they on sabbatical? Did they change their minds? I don’t know, but the fact that there are thousands less “scientists” to sign this nonsense is quite telling.
Second of all, a decade ago, over 30,000 American scientists signed the Global Warming Petition Project, which was a warning that there was NO convincing scientific evidence to suggest or prove man-made climate change was real. The Project also insisted that global pacts like the Paris Climate Accord (such as the Kyoto Protocol) were counterintuitive to science and people’s very lives.
Funny how a petition signed by more than 30,000 American scientists didn’t get any airtime from the cable news networks but 11,000 signatories from across the world received MSM attention.
Third of all, out of the 11,000 signatories of the most recent climate warning, only 156, or 1% of them, had a job title that included the field of climate research. The rest includes a list of the following:
I am not even joking. That’s how bad and outright funny this list is (which is now inaccessible since it was discovered that the talking mouse had signed it). Not only are an extremely low amount of people who have any sort of experience in the field of climatology the signatories, but some of the signatories are outright FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!
I honestly don’t know what’s funnier: that these people are desperate enough to credit a scientist’s MOM or fictional characters.
Have a look at the following pictures to find the sort of colorful cast this list includes:
This list is beyond parody and the titles that this list includes is a major reason I say that these are “scientists”. Yes, there are many here who actually are scientists, but not people who are qualified to sound the alarm over climate change in this manner. That 11,000 number may sound like a lot, which is its major intention, but 99% of it is filled with people who are either not climatologists, not doctors, not scientists or not even real.
Even one of the Zoologists on the list says that they are from the University of Neasden, UK. There is no University of Neasden, UK. The University of Neasden, UK is said to be a fictional university created by a British satirical magazine.
To put it into perspective, it’d be like giving credence to someone who was featured in a “The Onion” article.
The entire statement has a lot of problems, from bad graphs (no graph used shows historical data past 1980, so the lines are very sharp and diagonal when throughout the history of the world, what we have now might be considered fairly normal) to less signatories in just two years to the fact that there was a similar warning only two years ago to the fact that far more than double the amount of just American scientists argue AGAINST the idea of man-made climate change to the hilariously unqualified signatories ranging from scientists that have nothing to do with the climate to other professions to family members of a scientist to fictional people from fictional places.
Anyone who would even for a minute take this statement seriously is severely lacking in any sort of information about the topic at hand. Worse still, they would have to be severely lacking in this sort of information about who the signatories actually are or would have to be extremely dishonest to push this as any sort of significant evidence that there is a climate crisis and we must act with haste and in extreme ways.
Again, I invite you to read over any of the other articles I have written over the years surrounding the topic of climate change. Regardless of what you may think of them, or even me, I can guarantee I’m more qualified to talk about climate change than MICKEY MOUSE.
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Left hates to lose. They believe they are entitled to obtain and retain power forever and that any semblance of a challenge to said power is a crime or against justice itself. They believe anyone who dares take power from them must be brought down and annihilated. This is the sentiment of the Left; it has been for quite some time and currently is as we face a sham of an impeachment inquiry by these very Leftists in the House of Representatives.
But interestingly, while we all know how much of a sham and a silent coup this whole thing is, one would be pretty hard-pressed to find many on the Left who would publicly agree with this being a coup. Enter the fake whistleblower’s lawyer Mark Zaid, who tweeted the following:
In a reply to someone who had tweeted at Zaid, the lawyer said: “It’s very scary (that Trump is in office and “dismantling the government department by department” as the person Zaid is replying to alleged). We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.”
I will get to more tweets in a moment, but allow me to take a bit of a tangent here to point out a simple fact: the Left HATES us. Not simply Donald Trump. They hate US – the ones who elected him into office. When they attack Donald Trump, they attack us too. When they threaten Trump, they threaten us. They want to get rid of the guy because they hate him and because they hate us, who dared to challenge their Queen Hillary Clinton and, worse still, actually WON against them.
Zaid is replying to a tweet that talked about how Trump was “dismantling” the government. We aren’t dismantling the government (and Trump isn’t either. He's draining the swamp). But Zaid’s hatred and anger isn’t directed at just Trump. It’s directed at us. He said that the country would “survive” even us. WE are the patriotic ones hoping to Make America Great Again and THEY are the ones who have an allergic reaction to that phrase to the point where they seriously consider punching us in the face. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, NOT THEIRS!
But in any case, allow me to return to some more tweets and even what Zaid had to say about the tweets.
In another tweet, replying to a Jake Tapper tweet reporting Trump firing then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates (an Obama hold-over who ordered the Justice Department to ignore the President’s travel ban order in an act of insubordination and usurpation of power), Zaid tweeted: “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers.”
This is the tweet that spread like a wildfire on social media (at least in conservative Twittersphere) and where we find the guy ADMITTING THAT THIS ENTIRE THING IS A COUP AGAINST TRUMP!
Zaid, following the revelation of these tweets, sent Fox News a formal statement regarding the tweets. The statement said: “Those tweets were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people. I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers. The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.”
So he’s DEFENDING the tweets and doesn’t think they were inappropriate at all, which suits me just fine. He admits that this is a coup and doesn’t try to backtrack. In the meantime, he is an active participant in said coup as the lawyer of the whistleblower who filed the complaint leading the House to launch an impeachment inquiry.
Do me a favor and read over U.S. Code § 2385: Advocating Overthrow of Government and see if some things there may or may not apply to this guy at any extent, especially as being a participant of this impeachment charade.
Regardless of what you may think about the legality of what he said and his involvement in this impeachment process (not to mention the involvement of his client, the whistleblower, having ties to Brennan, Clapper, the “pee” dossier, and most especially Adam Schiff), there’s no doubt that this entire process is marred in corruption at the highest level and is nothing short of a coup against the President. This is something even THE LAWYER admits.
Not that we should really be so surprised. It’s in the Left’s very nature to do this sort of stuff. To prove my point, allow me to relatively briefly (might not be all that brief, fair warning) talk about something that was recently on the Leftist “fact-checking” website Snopes.
Snopes “fact-checked” a picture of President Dwight D. Eisenhower with the caption: "INTERESTING FACT!!! Did you know Democrats have tried to impeach every Republican President since Eisenhower???”
Of course, considering how bad of a look this might be for Democrats, Snopes had to “fact-check” it and their verdict was that the claim was “mostly false.” And as is usually the case for this site, what they say is false is usually true and what they say is true is usually false. So the claim actually is mostly true and it’s something even SNOPES admitted to, though didn’t paint it that way.
Here’s what Snopes said about the picture:
“The U.S. has had six Republican presidents since Eisenhower left office in 1961: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. The claim is wrong on its face because Democrats made no effort to impeach Ford. While a handful of Democratic lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against five of the last six Republican presidents, in most cases these efforts weren’t taken seriously by the party at large. Nixon and Trump have been the only Republican presidents since Ike who have faced a serious threat of impeachment.”
In the style of the Washington Post, I will give Snopes four Pinocchios for their verdict of “mostly false”. The actual verdict is “mostly true.” The only Republican President to not have faced some level of impeachment threats was the one that A) wasn’t elected and B) served only two years after taking office from the guy who resigned because he faced impeachment.
For everyone else, they faced Democrat lawmakers who were trying to impeach them, with varying levels of fervor. But the claim is still mostly true: every Republican President since Ike, except Ford, the Democrats have tried to impeach at varying levels.
Why? Because of what I talked about in the beginning: they HATE opposition and believe they are entitled to power. Donald Trump won fair and square against Hillary, a highly-embattled candidate, and the Left blew a gasket as a result, accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors at every level from bribery to corruption to collusion (which in itself isn’t a crime) to quid pro quo to outright betrayal of not only his oath of office but to the very country and the Constitution. These people PROVE that Leftism is a mental disease and continue to prove it day in and day out.
There wasn’t an ounce of evidence with regards to every other coup ploy they waged against Trump and there isn’t any evidence to anything they allege in this recent Ukraine one, prompting the Left to fall back on “obstruction of justice” and explore past just Ukraine. In the meantime, support for impeachment hasn’t really moved an inch in the Left’s favor this entire time and there have only been actual signs of the opposite being the case.
The Left is mounting a futile effort to remove the duly-elected President with extremely sketchy and shoddy reasoning, coming from a place of utter hatred for the guy and those of us who voted for him, and Zaid is gladly acknowledging that this is a coup against Trump.
The American Left is virtually no different from the Left in the Soviet Union, China and Europe. They are/were power-hungry tyrants who will depose any and all opposition where it might pop up and we are just supposed to take it in stride.
We elected Trump BECAUSE we were sick and tired of the status quo where the Leftist elites ruled and did whatever they wanted and the limp-stick GOP would let them do whatever they wanted, even if that meant Republicans having to bite the bullet sometimes. The Swamp is fighting back against us in this impeachment sham but we shall receive the ultimate victory. And I say “receive” ultimate victory not because it will be earned by us but because of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ already made and the plan that God has for us and for this country.
The evil of the Left will one day cease to exist and regardless of where this whole thing goes, I can rest assured of that. Now, don’t get me wrong, I fully believe we will beat the Left when it comes to impeachment (they have nothing) and Trump will be re-elected. But there will come a time when the Democrats regain control of the White House and that will truly be a terrifying time. Whether or not the Left is successful in destroying America remains to be seen. I cannot say one way or another what will happen with regards to that. However, I know perfectly well the destination of the evil Left.
What mortal success they may have here on earth, they will lose it all come the Day of Judgement. But in the meantime, let us continue fighting back against the evil Left, fighting for our liberty against tyranny, fighting for Trump and most importantly, fighting for God and His children.
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 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. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I know, I know, that is a very corny headline to use, but I’d say it’s rather an accurate description of what has recently occurred. Last Tuesday was election day for many states, in what the media had hoped would be a sort of preview for the 2020 presidential election (at least wherever Democrats would have won).
For the GOP, I find three notable news: the good, the bad and the ugly.
Let’s begin with the outright ugly first, just to get it out of the way: the GOP has completely lost Virginia.
Perhaps the writing was on the wall in this state, as this was the only Southern state that Trump lost in the 2016 election and considering Ralph “Coonman” Northam and Lt. Gov. Justin “Rapes-a-lot” Fairfax were extremely embattled and yet still won their own races for re-election (mostly because the timid GOP in the state refused to run on those things).
What’s more, Virginia Senate Democrats won 21 out of 40 total seats, and Virginia House Delegates now have 53 out of a total 100 seats, flipping both chambers and wrestling away control of the legislature from the GOP for the first time in decades (though with 30 Democrats running unopposed, such results are to be expected). Much as I hate to say it, Virginia is now a blue state, at least as it currently stands. Unless the Virginia GOP gets its act together, that state will most likely once again vote for the Democrat candidate in the next election and might even become another California (yes, the Democrats have a narrow advantage in the legislature, but still).
So that’s the downright ugly and basically the only thing that Democrats can realistically cling to and have an actual argument against Republicans and Trump.
The bad: the Kentucky Governor’s race went Democrat.
There is good reason this is under the category of simply “bad”. While it is a notable pickup for Democrats, it’s being overhyped. The media pretends as though this particular race ought to scare Trump and Republicans moving forward, but there are a lot of asterisks surrounding this win for the Democrats.
First of all, it was extremely close. The Democrat candidate won the race by just a little more than 5,000 votes. According to Georgia gubernatorial rules, the losing candidate can pretend they won and moan and whine around to the media for the next two years. A joke, of course, but this ought to tell you just how narrow of a win this was for the Democrats. The Georgia race back in 2018 was won by the Republican by less than 55,000 and the Democrats pretended like they won that one, with Stacey Abrams outright proclaiming on media show after media show that she was the real winner. It’s extremely ironic that a race that came down to a little more than only 5,000 votes is considered such a massive win for the Democrats.
Second of all, it shouldn’t have been this close. According to media polls (for however much they might be worth), Gov. Matt Bevin (R) was down around 17 to 20 points before Trump held a rally for the guy. What’s more, Bevin’s approval rating had been hovering around 30% for months prior to this race, so his loss was unsurprising. The guy was not popular at all and was actually the least popular governor in the U.S. back in the summer. The fact that he lost by only a little more than 5,000 votes should be a warning sign for Democrats: Trump’s extremely popular.
The governor was very embattled and it was an uphill battle during this election, falling just short of the goal. His loss was not only unsurprising, but would’ve been far more embarrassing had Trump not rallied and supported him. And let’s not beat around the bush: if the Democrat candidate had lost by the same exact margin that he actually won by, the Democrats and the media would’ve been singing the exact same tune. They still would’ve reported that Trump was in “deep danger” because of a narrow GOP win had that been the case. Instead, they report that Trump is in “deep danger” because of a narrow Democrat win. To these people, reality is what they want it to be, not what it is.
Third of all, while this particular race was, at the end of the day, a loss for Republicans, the rest of the races were all wins. Which brings me to:
Let’s take a look at all the other races in Kentucky alone, at least for now:
Daniel Cameron’s victory is also rather significant on its own because he’s the first African-American ever to be voted into the position and is the first Republican to win that position in over 70 years.
Over in Mississippi, we find the inverse of Virginia: GOP completely controlling the state.
Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves (R) defeated Attorney General Jim Hood (D) 52-46%, a 6-point margin, and will replace outgoing Governor Phil Bryant (R). Both the House and Senate are also in control by the Republicans in the state.
The President sent tweets both in congratulations to the Republicans that won (at least the high-profile ones) and in fully understanding what the media would try to spin out of the Kentucky gubernatorial election. He accurately predicted that the media would blame him for Bevin’s ultimate loss and that it would be spun as a “warning” for Republicans moving forward. The only warning Republicans got out of that race is: don’t be a bad governor.
All-in-all, Tuesday’s elections were a bit of a mixed bag for everyone. The Democrats had a massive win in Virginia, a narrow win in the Kentucky gubernatorial race, the Republicans had big wins at every other level of the Kentucky elections and maintained complete control over Mississippi. But the big takeaways from these races are far from what the media wishes to portray them. The Kentucky Governor’s race was ultimately a loss for the GOP but an extremely close one, considering how utterly unpopular the incumbent GOP governor was. Again, the guy was down by massive margins (according to media polls, but you can never take them at face value) and was extremely unpopular, one of the least popular governors in the country. And still, he barely lost by more than 5,000 votes.
All things considered, that should’ve been a cakewalk for the Democrats and it was far from it. They ultimately came away with the victory, but a pyrrhic one at best.
Donald Trump proves once again how popular he is.
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In this day and age, we never run short of examples of media or overall Leftist hypocrisy. However, this case is one that particularly grinds my gears because it is a story relating to sexual assault, pedophilia and protecting the elites who often act as though they are above the law (and in some cases, unfortunately, are above the law, at least the law of Man).
Back when then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was facing an onslaught of ever-crazier stories of sexual assault, rape and misconduct, ABC News was one of the main headliners of these stories, running multiple reports of these allegations, including the most bombastic one: Julie Swetnick’s. If you remember, her story included multiple parties that she had attended some 30 or 40 years prior where in each and every one, she alleges there were “rape trains” occurring but ultimately could not remember if Kavanaugh was one of the guys who allegedly participated in it.
I said that that one was likely the single craziest one and least credible one of them all (few, if any, were credible, with Ford’s being the most likely to have been credible and even then, there were many question marks about her testimony), and yet, ABC News ran with the story as though it was 100% credible and as though there was sufficient evidence in the story to run it.
Keep that last point in mind, as it will be important later on.
In any case, that is what the fake news organization, ABC News, attempted to do to Kavanaugh: smear him with any and all allegations of heinous acts of rape and sexual misconduct. And yet, according to a recent bombshell video from Project Veritas, the same people who pushed for the crazy and unverified allegations against Kavanaugh decided not to report on the heinous, more credible, and more provable actions of now-deceased Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein.
In a leaked video, ABC News anchor Amy Robach said the following on a hot mic:
“I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (one of Epstein’s alleged victims and accusers). We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’, ‘No one knows who that is,’, ‘This is a stupid story.’ Then the (Royal) Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew (who was implicated in the Epstein story) and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes. [Roberts] told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, (Bill) Clinton, we had everything.”
“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now, like every day I get more and more pissed because I’m like, oh my God, what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up. Brad Edwards, the attorney (for the alleged victims), three years ago saying like, ‘there will come a day [when] we will realize Jeffrey was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.’ I had it all three years ago.”
Of course, this bombshell of a leaked video had to be addressed by both Amy and her employer, ABC News, particularly because of how bad this makes them look as a news organization. This is extremely similar to the NBC News story where they had the opportunity to report on Harvey Weinstein’s rapes and sexual assaults but chose to bury the story.
In any case, here is Amy Robach’s statement regarding the leaked footage and what she said on the hot mic:
“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private islands were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations – not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
And here’s ABC News’ statement reflecting something similar to Robach’s:
“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That work had led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”
One key element in both statements is the allegation that ABC News has any sort of editorial standards. I, presently, cannot find any corroborating evidence of such an allegation, given what they considered to be “news-worthy” enough for these people to run.
Again, they ran the extremely poor and hilariously bad allegation from JULIE SWETNICK. She alleged something insane, where she expected people to believe she would go to a party held by the same high schoolers (she was in college) around ten different times, knowing after the first experience that “rape trains” would occur and STILL went. And ALL OF THAT just to eventually reveal that she wasn’t even sure whether or not Kavanaugh, the subject in question and the one being marred as a serial rapist and sexual abuser, actually participated in any of the sexual assaults or rapes that allegedly occurred at those parties.
Not only was her testimony extremely suspicious and completely incredible (as in, not credible at all), but she ultimately couldn’t even really allege much about THE GUY THESE PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO PAINT AS A RAPIST DEMON and they STILL ran her story as though she were sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole world needed to hear her story, despite the fact that Swetnick had no corroborating evidence to anything she was alleging.
The statement from Robach even sounds almost like she had a gun to her head from her employers if she didn’t try and correct the record or issue some sort of clarification that would save ABC News’ face to some degree. It sounds extremely forced and for good reason: ABC News wishes they could bury this story like they did the Epstein one.
The Epstein story, having heavily implicated both Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton (Clinton had traveled in Epstein’s private jets and the pilot logs frequently note that underage girls would accompany him and Epstein, painting Clinton as even more of a sexual assaulter and demon than he already was due to the Broaddrick, Lewisnky and Paula Jones scandals), would’ve hurt the Democrats, particularly then-hopeful Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet another story implicating Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct would’ve only piled on more to Hillary’s inability to be an electable candidate. The e-mails and the already-known sexual assault allegations made against Bill were bad enough, the last thing the Democrat Party needed was yet another story where “the comeback kid” (a nickname that now sounds so horrible when you think about it) likely could have raped not only more women, but underage girls.
This is the utterly despicable hypocrisy the Left-wing media possesses. If a prominent right-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, it is treated as fact despite all the lacking evidence and even despite any semblance of credibility. Kavanaugh has been forever marred as a rapist and sexual assaulter by these people. His reputation has been eternally tarnished.
But if a prominent left-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, no matter the available evidence or the credibility of the accusation, the story gets buried, ignored and the left-winger continues to be paraded around as a “woke” character who is of great moral standing.
Beyond the fact that this is horrendously hypocritical, what’s even worse is the fact that this only puts sexual assault victims and future victims at risk. Real stories will go unreported because of the fake ones that gain national attention and get recognized as fake and young girls are led to believe that these Democrats are good and kind-hearted people, eager to help you with anything you need and can be wholly trusted regarding anything.
It puts young girls at risk of being raped and their testimony shut down. It covers for sexual assaulters and rapists and leaves vulnerable girls at risk of it happening to them in the future. Let’s not forget that the Katie Hill story was covered like the Clinton impeachment story was: that it was just about sex. It wasn’t just about sex. It was about having sex with a subordinate, which goes against House ethics rules, and about sexually abusing the subordinate and pimping her out to the representative’s husband. There were PHOTOGRAPHS of this occurring and the media treated Katie Hill like SHE was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Meanwhile, no attention is paid to how her victims feel about the entire fiasco, no attention is paid to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton (and others) because the allegations made are against the people these Leftists in the media support and favor.
ABC News should feel utterly ashamed at what they are doing and what they have done, but we know good and well that they have no shame to feel. They’ll sweep this whole ordeal under the rug and go on to continue to report highly incredible allegations against right-wingers where they might pop up and continue to report on how “screwed” Trump is due to the impeachment scam.
These people make me sick.
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We are in early November. Halloween has passed, people are beginning to prepare for Thanksgiving and are beginning to put up Christmas decorations (way too early, in my opinion, but oh well). In other words, we are near the end of 2019. So imagine my surprise to hear perhaps the singular dumbest take I have ever heard, at least with regards to climate change, this late in the year. That is a spectacular feat, in my opinion.
Speaking to MSNBC anchors Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made the ludicrous and rather audacious claim that there were no such things as hurricanes, tornadoes or storms before climate change.
“Ali, anyone who questions extreme weather and climate change is just delusional at this point,” began the idiotic governor, not realizing the extreme irony of his statement. “We have seen in the State of New York and we have seen – it is something we never had before. We didn’t have hurricanes or super storms or tornadoes.”
A rather short quote, but it says an awful lot about the man’s intellectual capacity.
First of all, he’s hilariously wrong, of course. Even doing a simple Google search of “New York hurricanes”, you can find a Wikipedia article that lists the hurricanes that made landfall in New York. The article itself notes 4 hurricanes and 2 super storms before 1800 alone. It notes that one hit as early as 1278 to 1438 (they aren’t certain of the exact date because no one can know for sure about such events without having some way to document/record them, which is a major reason Cuomo is hilariously wrong and a point I will return to).
Second of all, the quote in itself is extremely vague. When has there ever not been a change in the climate as time went on? There was never a point in Earth’s history when there wasn’t climate change. That term is far too loosely and erroneously used. “Before climate change” would have to mean before Earth’s very existence. But even still, we know what this idiot means. He means “before man-made climate change”, which is not real. He means “before we started using cars and A/Cs and planes and we had a lot of farting cows.”
But again, to return to the Wikipedia article, we find 4 hurricanes and 2 super storms before 1800 alone and we didn’t start using cars more extensively until the early-to-mid 20th century. So how do you go about explaining those storms before the modern excuses made by the Left were actually around?
And how do you go about explaining the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods, which occurred WELL before the introduction of cars, A/Cs, planes, oil-powered ships, and whatever else Leftists blame for climate change? Even the Modern Warm Period, which began in the late 1920s or early 1930s, can’t be explained away with these same excuses because there’s no way they would’ve been widely used throughout the world enough to cause the sort of damage the Left claims modern vehicles and numbers of vehicles produce. The first automobiles to be mass produced in the U.S. were the ones with the crank in the front and that began in 1901. Roughly 20 to 30 years of considerably less than 77 million adults (total population of U.S. in 1901 was 77.5 million people, but that includes children, so there are less adults) both having the knowledge to drive and money to afford a car (the 1901 Oldsmobile sold for $650 or $16,000 today and only 1.6% of the population made over $25 a week, which tells you a lot about the worth of money at the time).
What I’m trying to say is that not even the Modern Warming Period can be explained away with the excuses the Left throws out.
Now, do you want to know what’s particularly ironic with regard to Cuomo’s idiotic claim? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notes that there has been a “negative trend” of hurricanes making landfall since the late 1800s and no other research has shown an increase of global hurricane activity. So, if anything, there have been LESS hurricanes since “climate change” began, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
The final point I wish to make revisits something I said in my first one: there’s no way to tell what happened even a few hundred years ago with perfect accuracy without a means to document and/or record the incident. We especially have no way to track such hurricane and storm activity with a great amount of accuracy less than a millennium ago. So there is absolutely no way for Cuomo to be even relatively right about what he’s saying because he can’t be certain of it himself, at least not while being backed up with facts.
Obviously, the facts already go against what Cuomo claims. Today, when we can track, record and document hurricanes, their strength, their path, etc., we still show less hurricanes than before the 1800s, as I mentioned the NOAA noted.
Aside from the fact that we already know there is no direct causation between climate change and extreme weather events like hurricanes and other storms, even if there were, the evidence would show that “climate change”, at least during the period the Left claims it began and up until now, has actually been rather beneficial to people. This is assuming the Left is right about the assertion of “when” climate change began.
But no matter what way you slice it, what Gov. Andrew Cuomo said is absolutely lunatic. Aside from the fact that there is no way for him to verify that what he says is true, the very basic claim that there was a particular “beginning” to climate change (where he means we have something to do with it) is laughable at best and concerning at worst. Concerning not because he might be right but because we have to live with the knowledge that he is governor of an entire state. This man is the one leading New York right now. Pathetic, isn’t it?
The only ones here who actually are delusional are the people that believe man can cause storms like this. That’s some ancient Native American, African tribe type of stuff, where people would try and make it rain through “rain dances”. The belief that man can affect the climate in such a way is not only extremely antiquated, but goes against the very facts that we have and the very knowledge that we possess. It goes against reality itself.
But facts don’t matter to the climate cult. Try and explain any of this to someone that fervently believes in man-made climate change and you will be the one tried as a heretic. These people take ancient beliefs about the climate and call it science. An absolute shame.
“And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The latest jobs numbers appear to be pretty good for President Trump. For the month of October, the U.S. economy added 128,000 jobs, which is far higher than the 75,000 that was expected from economists, who had forecasts ranging anywhere from 55,000 jobs to 155,000. The unusually wide range is due, at least in part, to how different economists expected the General Motors strike to affect the employment numbers for suppliers and other businesses related to GM.
And while 128,000 is rather low for Trump’s administration, it’s entirely possible they will be revised up next month. You see, back in October, I wrote a similar article as this one, detailing the numbers for September and even talked about July’s and August’s numbers. In that article, I mentioned how the original jobs numbers for July were revised up from 159,000 to 166,000 and the numbers for August were revised up from 130,000 to 168,000.
Well, August’s numbers were revised once again from 168,000 to 219,000, which is far more usual for the Trump economy. What’s more, September’s jobs numbers were revised up from 136,000 to 180,000. So I really have no reason to believe that October’s jobs numbers won’t also be revised up, especially since the GM strike is now over and that means there will be more manufacturing jobs.
The unemployment rate, however, did tick up a little bit, up from last month’s 50-year-low of 3.5% to 3.6%, so not really bad whatsoever. The unemployment rate is still near the record lows and still going great.
When it comes to hourly earnings, the average went up by 0.1%, bringing the year-over-year to a 3% gain.
But there is also good news for African Americans, as described in the title. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to a record-low 5.4% for the month of October. For black men, the unemployment rate also hit a record low of 5.1%. The previous record low for black men was 5.2%, which was set in December of 1973. The unemployment rate for black women, however, did tick up a little, from 4.6% to 4.8% in October.
Certainly, these are very good news for President Trump, as the House has voted to proceed with an impeachment inquiry, voted for entirely by the partisan majority, with bipartisan support against impeachment (granted, it was only 2 Democrats, but if even one Republican would’ve voted in favor of impeachment inquiry, the Left would’ve called it bipartisan, so let’s beat them at their own game).
As I have said multiple times in the past, you need public support in order to successfully impeach a President. Even if the House votes to impeach, the Senate will not vote to convict, so Trump will remain in office and will most likely steam roll any Democrat opponent he faces. Impeachment is usually a black stain on one’s presidency, but if it’s entirely by Democrat vote (even if some Never Trump Republican swamp-dwellers like Romney vote to remove), then that black stain becomes a badge of honor for Trump.
The swamp is so afraid and disturbed by Trump that they will go to any lengths to get rid of him, even if that means performing an illegitimate (it may be through legal means, but the process of shadow hearings, selective leaks, disallowing Trump to face his accuser and disallowing exculpatory evidence goes against due process, by which this land’s legal system functions) impeachment inquiry and impeachment vote. They haven’t been able to beat him through conventional means and are utterly desperate. The Russia gambit didn’t pay off and they made the mistake of thinking they could actually prove collusion. Now, despite knowing they can’t prove a quid pro quo in the phone call due to the release of the transcript, they decided not to wait around and jumped the shark for impeachment.
They don’t care that the public doesn’t support them on this. Like Al Green said, if Trump isn’t impeached, he will be re-elected. The irony here is that if he is impeached, he will be re-elected too.
But as I said, in order to be successful in impeaching and removing a president, you need public support. The Democrats don’t have that and likely never will with numbers like the ones we are finding. People’s economic well-being is an important issue. No Democrat cares about that, given how many of their policies they are proposing that will 100% raise people’s taxes, despite what they might try and argue.
When it comes to the economy, Trump wins. It’s for this reason that no debate or townhall really featured a section on how to improve the economy because the economy is doing so well under Trump.
We can only expect the economy to still look great under Trump’s policies, especially heading into 2020. However much the Left might try and ruin it to hurt Trump (at the cost of hurting Americans, which tells you all you need to know about how little they care about people), they can only do so much.
“Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I personally do not blame you if you had to read that title more than a couple of times. It makes as little sense to me as it does to you. However, this is where we are today.
In an open letter by nine Cuban democratic socialists, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) received major condemnation for their support of the Castro regime.
The letter read: “The support for Castroism revealed in resolution 62 of the recent Convention of the Democratic Socialists of the United States, held in Atlanta, Georgia, can only be explained by two reasons: either the American Socialist Democrats do not know the Cuban reality or they are not socialist or democratic.”
I can guarantee that they do not know the “Cuban reality” and are certainly not democratic, but I just have to ask: do these people not know what socialism is?
I will get back to that point momentarily. To give you some context, Resolution 62 is a resolution by the DSA to support the Castro regime and condemn American and allied sanctions against the communist state.
Resolution 62 states:
“Be it resolved, the DSA formally declares itself in solidarity with the Cuban socialist struggle. The DSA unequivocally condemns the economic blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States and its allies, the American military presence in Guantanamo Bay, and any sanctions and actions that would undermine the self-determination of the Cuban people. Be it further resolved, the DSA will move to join the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), an American progressive organization dedicated to opposing acts of imperialist aggression against the Republic of Cuba. Be it finally resolved, within thirty days after passing, the DSA will submit its application for full membership to the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), and will take active measures to pursue full membership status.”
In other words, these communist scumbags support the communist regime of Castro and his enslavement of the Cuban people. There is no “Cuban socialist struggle” because the socialists are the ruling class there and all dissenters are either imprisoned or executed. The Cuban people are not allowed to self-determine their fate because the communist regime determines that – that’s the whole point of socialism. There is no “imperialist aggression” against Cuba; it’s a state that murders and enslaves its own citizens. America is sort of against that kind of practice which is why there are economic sanctions placed on it. What’s more, it’s far from a “Republic.” The U.S. is a Republic. Cuba is a communist slave state.
But what is interesting about this whole situation is, again, the letter sent by the Cuban socialists who are seemingly against the communist Castro regime and against the DSA regarding their support of it… somehow.
Returning to the letter:
“You (the DSA) have been in solidarity with a regime maintained by force of arms, murder, imprisonment, repression and compulsory exile of the opponents, which has not held free and democratic elections for more than 60 years, which systematically violates massive [sic] and blatantly the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Cuban people and is sustained by the repression and monopoly of the economy, information, education and public health.”
“They have supported a regime that appropriated by force all lands, industries, factories and large, medium and small companies, private or associated and made them property of a bureaucratic state, which exploits the Cuban workers in slavery and it blocks the economic development of the country, of independent companies of the state of all sizes, whether private or cooperative and the welfare of Cubans.”
Reading just these two paragraphs, you would think they were written by capitalistic people making a very good case against socialism/communism. But nope. Immediately following these paragraphs, we find the rest of the letter:
“A regime with these characteristics cannot be considered democratic or socialist. The Cuban independence apostle, Jose Marti, envisioned in his article the Future Slavery, the Cuban reality of today, where the all-powerful state and every decision maker would exploit the Cuban workers as if they were slaves, without rights and dependent on the gifts of a totalitarian government.”
“In Cuba, there is a system of modern slavery, undemocratic, Stalinist. Is that the social justice that the democratic socialists of the United States claim for that brother town [sic]? Whoever stands in solidarity with that regime does not know him, does not know what is happening in Cuba or is as imposter as Castroism.”
“Several Cuban democratic socialists, who have been facing the anti-popular, totalitarian and anti-socialist policies of Castroism for decades, for which some of us have suffered repression and exile, we reject any kind of solidarity with the Castro regime and we do not share the defense of it carried out in that convention for supposed or poorly-informed American democratic socialists.”
A scathing, if rather confusing, letter from such Cuban socialists to the DSA. But I just have to return to the question I asked earlier: do these people not know what socialism is?
They seemingly claim to be socialists, standing for socialist policies. And yet, they excoriate the communist, totalitarian and all-powerful government, condemn the forceful appropriation of private land and businesses and even go so far as to accuse the DSA members of not actually being democratic or socialist.
I agree that they are not democratic. If they were, they would call for Cuba to have democratic elections (much of a sham as they might be) and it hasn’t had one in over half a century. But there is no doubt in my mind that they are socialist, or at least support socialist policies. The desire and mission to make every single industry and land belong to the government is what socialism is all about. Communism is no different, and neither is Fascism.
I would say they are all different sides of the same coin, but that analogy doesn’t quite work because there’s three of them (socialism/communism/fascism). But fundamentally, they all strive for and attempt to achieve the same goal: government control of everything, every industry, every land, even every person.
Socialism, communism and fascism all make slaves out of their citizens. Case in point is Cuba, but Venezuela is no different, neither are North Korea or China or any other current communist country, and neither was the Soviet Union.
I suppose the only thing I could point to as being the reason for these socialists to be against communism is the forceful appropriation of lands and industries, but that still doesn’t make much sense to me. For one, if given the chance, socialists in America would take any and all industry and land by force. It’s the primary reason they are so against the Second Amendment and wish to strip us of our right to bear arms. Secondly, is the argument that the people should’ve given the land and industries willingly as opposed to forcefully taking it from them? Would that somehow make it less communist and more “socialist” as though there is much of a difference at all?
While I certainly appreciate anyone, particularly on the Left, attacking the DSA or socialists like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc., I was frankly taken aback by this letter, the condemnation and the accusations against the DSA.
These Cuban socialists, again, were making a terrific case AGAINST socialism/communism, not for it. Everything the communist regime in Cuba has done, from Che Guevara to the current Castro brother, is befitting of socialism/communism. There is no fundamental difference between the two and the result of both are the same: government control of everything.
Venezuela is no better off than Cuba is just because they voted socialism in as opposed to the Cubans who had an armed revolution to bring communism in. The end result is government ownership of every industry, land and person. All citizens of a socialist/communist country are subject to whatever the state determines is allowed and legal. Any dissent can and will be punished, being perceived as a threat to the communist state.
I find it very ironic that these Cuban socialists would excoriate the Castro regime and the DSA for sidling up to the Castro regime when they, themselves, ideologically believe in the same exact thing. Choosing between Castro and any other socialist is tantamount to choosing between Stalin and Hitler. The two hated each other and were enemies, but were ultimately one and the same: communist/socialist authoritarians, not because they chose to be but because that’s what their ideology naturally leads to.
“For the fool speaks folly, and his heart is busy with iniquity, to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the Lord, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will 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...