This is not the first time this proposal has come up. In the past, some counties in Oregon have looked into leaving the far-Left state and becoming part of the State of Idaho, so as to leave behind the state that is dominated by far-Left Portland. Five counties are seeking to do it once again.
According to The Washington Times: “Five Oregon counties will ask voters in the next election whether they want to detach from the deep-blue state and join neighboring red-state Idaho.”
“Move Oregon’s Border, also known as Greater Idaho, confirmed Tuesday that the initiative to move swaths of largely rural eastern and southern Oregon into Idaho qualified for the May 18 special election ballot in five counties: Baker, Grant, Lake, Malheur, and Sherman.”
“In Baker County, organizers far exceeded the 496 signatures required by submitting 746, with the clerk reporting that 630 were accepted. The county population is about 16,000.”
“’Oregon is a powder keg because counties that belong in a red-state like Idaho are ruled by Portlanders,’ said Mike McCarter, president of Move Oregon’s Border, in a statement.”
“He cited the impact of Democratic Gov. Kate Brown’s novel coronavirus restrictions; ongoing Antifa unrest in Portland; a state task force’s unsuccessful effort to prioritize ‘Black, Indigenous and people of color’ for novel coronavirus vaccines, and what he described as the state legislature’s bias in favor of Portland over rural communities.”
“’This state protects Antifa arsonists, not normal Oregonians, it prioritizes one race above another for vaccines and program money and in the school curriculum, and it prioritizes Willamette Valley above rural Oregon,’ Mr. McCarter said.”
And I would have to agree with the sentiment that the state is really dominated by Portland and the most populous areas of the state, to the point where the rest of the state is ignored politically.
Look at the following election results image for the state:
Does it look like Oregon is a largely blue state to you? The only reason it’s as far-Left and deep-blue as it is is because of Portland and the generally more populous areas of the state, which are found in the Northwestern portions of the state.
And even then, not all Northwestern counties are blue, either. So then, it makes perfect sense that the red counties, which do not have big enough populations to affect the states’ results (and which constantly get shafted by the Left’s policies), would want to move to Idaho, which is a red state.
Conservative commentator Jesse Kelly put it best: “A small preview of things to come. We are two different peoples. Absolutely no need to be one nation for the sake of tradition.”
He is certainly right. I was of this line of thinking even during the Trump administration, but especially so following the theft of the 2020 election and the dissolution of the union by the Supreme Court.
We do not need to stay together as one nation. It would be ideal if we could unify around something, but with Marxist anti-American indoctrination poisoning the minds of kids, that is becoming more and more difficult.
It certainly doesn’t help that a recent poll from Echelon Insights shows that while Republicans’ main concerns are issues such as illegal immigration, lack of support for police, high taxes and liberal bias in the MSM, Democrats’ main concerns are Trump supporters, white nationalism and systemic racism in that order.
Republicans are worried about the issues while Democrats are worried about their political opponents. They hate us and believe us to be the biggest threat to this country (by which they mean the country they want to turn this country into).
The Left hates us and we should not feel differently towards the Left. But before we go through a perhaps needless second civil war, it might be more prudent to attempt a national divorce.
Like Jesse said, there is no need to remain as one nation for the sake of tradition. I don’t like what this country has turned into largely because of the Establishment and The Party. And unlike the secession of the 1860s, it’s more likely that both parties involved would be okay with the separation.
The Democrat South seceded to protect the institution of slavery (and don’t tell me they did it to “protect states’ rights”. Protect their rights to what? It makes no sense that Republicans in the South want to maintain the pride and honor of the actions of Democrats) and the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, wanted to maintain the Union while also ensuring the human rights of slaves.
This time, the Left hates the Right and the Right is more willing to split the country into two. The question becomes: does the Left want to maintain the Union just to ensure that the Right receives the punishment the Left wants to issue? I’m more willing to believe the Left would be this sadist, but it’s even more of a reason to attempt this, even if it would almost certainly lead to another civil war.
The path, as far as I can see, leads us down three roads: capitulation and slavery of the Right, revolution from the Right, or national divorce by the Left and Right.
The first option is self-explanatory, the Right becomes as limp-stick as the old GOP and does nothing to fight for the country’s founding principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the rights afforded to us by God. This is what the Liz Cheney’s and the Adam Kinzinger’s of the current GOP desire because they are establishment rats who thrive from people’s slavery.
The second option is more complicated and harder to picture. Who knows where such a revolution would begin or how it would begin, or if it would even be remotely successful?
The third option is the most appealing and perhaps the best chance we have at preserving the Union’s founding principles. Like I said in a previous article, I don’t mind the Left’s policies so long as they affect only the Left. The problem comes in the fact that it never only affects the Left, particularly when they are the ones with power, electorally and otherwise.
So to avoid the total destruction of the States and our being sold off to China, Russia and Iran, it’s best to attempt a peaceful national divorce. The Left gets the communist dystopia that they want in their own little sections of the continent, and the rest of us get left the hell alone by these crazy people. Ideally, anyway.
But if the options are as I pointed out, this is by far the best option available. Maybe there is a fourth option which is to try and slowly take our country back electorally and otherwise (meaning draining the entire swamp) which might be possible as well, though a far more daunting task with, in my mind, a smaller chance of succeeding.
This is where we are now and some of the options we have ahead of us. I sure as hell do not feel like capitulating to the Left and becoming their slave, so that first option cannot be the one we take.
We must be able to think of ways to protect our nation from the Left, even if it means allowing them to have some pockets of it in a national divorce. We need to seriously consider the option of forming the Republican States of America (proper name pending) and the Democrat States of America. And, like people in Oregon are trying to do, that doesn’t necessarily mean splitting up the country by the established state borders.
There are many counties in California which are red which I think ought to be included in the Republican States. Likewise for many blue states. It’s about figuring out how to best ensure the country’s founding principles of liberty are preserved while also maintaining, as best as possible, our place on the world stage. I want a free America and a strong America. That ought to be the priority.
So I hope that the citizens of many Oregon counties begin to vote to leave the blue state which is screwing them and become part of a state which is considerably friendlier to them. Change needs to happen for the sake of the country.
“That the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”
We have known that the American Left and the Nazis are inseparable for a long time now. The Left was an inspiration to the Nazis in drafting their racist laws, taking Democrat Jim Crow laws as a model, and that the Left likewise loved and respected the Nazis, with the NYT being more than happy to publish multiple op-eds from Hitler himself.
But in recent time, it feels as though the Left is becoming more and more comfortable in showing what vile anti-Semites they are. Of course, with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib being so openly anti-Semitic, and being fairly popular on the Left, it was only a matter of time until this egregious hatred became more open.
There are two, technically three, stories that I want to talk about here. They are largely unrelated apart from the fact that Leftists are showing how closely related to the Nazis they always have been.
First, a story from Tufts University.
Max Price, a junior at the college, is reportedly facing a student government impeachment trial due to his pro-Israel stances. Price “has served as the president of the Tufts Friends of Israel group and is an elected member of the student government judiciary committee,” reports The Daily Wire.
Price, in a letter obtained by Jewish Insider, claims to have been “targeted and marginalized, called a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, [and] an enemy of progress.” It’s worth mentioning also that Price is Jewish, so the charge that he is a “Nazi” is particularly egregious and a reason as to why the term loses so much meaning.
If someone was considered a Nazi, that used to be a major problem. Now, anyone the Left dislikes is considered a Nazi, so its meaning is being lost (considering the Left loves Nazis, it’s unsurprising that they want to make the term “Nazi” so irrelevant).
Meanwhile, also unsurprisingly, the Left themselves display how Nazi-like they are with crap like this. Price is being targeted by a pro-Palestine group within the school called Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) which recently passed a non-binding resolution in the student government seeking to divest the school from Israel.
According to The Daily Wire, the resolution “demanded that the university prohibit campus police from attending military-led trips to Israel and ‘apologize for sending the former Tufts police chief to a militarized training trip.’”
SJP and other Leftist groups call international exchange programs “The Deadly Exchange”, with Leftist Jewish Voice for Peace claiming that the programs “promote and extend discriminatory and repressive policing practices that already exist in both countries.”
Basically, they are partly blaming Israel for the “racist cops” in both Israel and the States. It’s a bullcrap narrative to support another bullcrap narrative.
Being a member of the judiciary committee, Price was tasked with “eliminating biased, misleading or otherwise untruthful language” in any proposed student referendum text, which includes the SJP’s resolution.
As a result of Price being Jewish and being on that committee, the SJP demanded that he recuse himself from reviewing the text of the resolution, claiming that he would be biased. Reportedly, SJP members also pressured the student government leaders to mandate his recusal.
The judiciary committee held an emergency meeting to determine if Price should recuse himself but ultimately concluded that he should not be recused. Of course, because the SJP was unhappy with that result, they sought other avenues, now seeking to have him impeached.
Even though the judiciary committee had found that Price’s identity as a Jewish person and his perspective were not biasing in the process of reviewing the referendum, the SJP is targeting him solely for that identity. They believe that, with Price being Jewish and being pro-Israel, he would block the anti-Israel resolution.
And so, they seek to impeach him because that has worked out so well for the Left in recent years. Make no mistake, they are targeting him because he is Jewish and they hate Jews, else they would not be “pro-Palestine”, a ridiculous position that seeks to strip Israel of its rightful possession of the Holy Lands.
A Change.org petition was started (which is interesting, seeing as Change.org is a Soros-funded Leftist organization) demanding that the university stop the impeachment trial, claiming that the impeachment violates Price’s rights found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and other traits.
Price also claims in his letter that he had sent more than 30 documented incidents of anti-Semitism happening on campus which he sent to the school’s administration with zero response from them. One such incident was reportedly of a swastika having been posted on the room door of a Jewish student.
Ultimately, Price also wrote: “[Anti-Semitism] does not emanate from a secret cabal of white supremacists, nor an alt-right student collective. Rather, it camouflages itself to assume the form of progressive activism.”
And he is very much correct on that last remark, as the second story will reflect.
This second story is regarding NBC due to two incidents of anti-Semitism being displayed on their network (which is why I said “technically three stories” in the beginning). Earlier in the week, NBC’s SNL’s Michael Che did a segment on Weekend Update discussing Israel’s administration of Chinese coronavirus vaccines, implying that they were only giving the vaccine to Jewish residents.
Then, on Wednesday, the network was once again under fire for an episode of their medical drama “Nurses”, which reportedly included a rather “offensive portrayal of an Orthodox Jew,” according to the Florida Sun-Sentinel.
“The objectionable storyline occurred on an episodes of ‘Nurses,’ a Canadian hour-long drama following a group of nurses in a Toronto hospital. In the episode, a young Hasidic patient is told he will need a bone graft to heal his broken leg, leading his devout father to recoil at the possibility of a ‘dead goyim leg from anyone. An Arab, a woman,’” according to the Florida outlet.
The Daily Wire reports “The episode is actually a string of bizarre depictions of Orthodox Jewish individuals. The son, who is suffering from a broken leg, skipped shul to play basketball – an activity he, the show says, is forbidden from. And after it is explained he will need a bone graft, one of the main characters (who is an admitted atheist) attempts to quote religious scripture to the pair – who will not speak to her because, being religious zealots, they do not speak to women – and then claims to be a messenger of God warning the pair to acquiesce to medical treatment.”
Basically, the show is using a strawman depiction of Orthodox Jews to “show” that they are racists, sexists, anti-science and generally bigoted and ignorant.
The nurse eventually cannot convince the pair to get surgery, with them choosing prayer over the operation, and as the boy is escorted out of the hospital, the nurse is heard narrating: “What do we do when we can’t save someone? Faced with a battle that can’t be won?” as if to say that the Orthodox Jews cannot be reasoned with.
Naturally, this drew a lot of criticism from people because of its blatant and obvious anti-Semitism.
One commentator who often blogs about Orthodox Jewish life explained to people why the episode was so insulting to Jews and why their assertions and assumptions were entirely baseless.
“The idea that such a surgery would be problematic in general or problematic because of where the bone came from not only is categorically false according to Jewish law, it is a vicious lie that endangers men who walk around with curled sidelocks and black hats.”
“For those of you unfamiliar with Jewish law, which puts precedent on healing and saving lives, there is no prohibition on the kind of bone graft in this clip. The writers made it up, dressed their actors in Jew-face, and put random extremist nonsense in their mouths,” added another commentator.
So that’s two, technically three, incidents of recent anti-Semitic behavior by Leftists. One from college Leftists who believe in nonsensical “Free Palestine” crap and the other from a TV network that twice in one week displayed anti-Semitic mentalities.
The Left is becoming more and more openly like the Nazi Party. Who among us is surprised by this revelation that the historically racist party is openly racist?
“The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool.”
When photos taken in 2014 of migrant children in cages were released during the Trump administration, the fake news media and Left accused the president of keeping kids in cages and treating them like animals. Basically, they were accusing him of crimes against humanity.
Despite the fact that, once again, those photos were taken in 2014 and thus, during the Obama administration, the Left took that ball and ran with it as much as they could, accusing Trump of despicable things. Despite that being one of the many debunked hoaxes the Left propagated about Trump, they used that up until he left office.
Now, however, with Biden being the Occupier of the Oval Office, the narrative has changed. Biden is still keeping kids in cages and even recently, opened a “migrant facility for children”, according to the WaPo.
“First migrant facility for children opens under Biden,” read their headline. Wanna know what the headline would have been under the Trump administration? “First migrant concentration camp for children opens its cold, steel gates under Trump.”
They would have made this “migrant facility for children” sound as much like it’s Auschwitz as they possibly could. But under Biden, they call it a “migrant facility for children”. And the WaPo tried to make it look like it’s a vacation resort for the kids, writing:
“At the 66-acre site, groups of beige trailers encircle a giant white dining tent, a soccer field and a basketball court. There is a bright blue hospital tent with white bunk beds inside. A legal services trailer has the Spanish word 'Bienvenidos', or welcome, on a banner on its roof. There are trailers for classrooms, a barber shop, a hair salon. The facility has its own ambulances and firetrucks, as well as its own water supply.”
“The most colorful trailer is at the entryway, where flowers, butterflies and handmade posters still hang on its walls from Carrizo’s first opening in 2019.”
Like they point out, the facility was first opened in 2019, when Trump was president. When he was president, the WaPo made sure to make the facility look as bad as it could, quoting an operator of that shelter as saying “I hate this mission” and getting a video of “Inside the holding facility for migrant children in Carrizo Springs, TX.”
Since their articles are behind a pay-wall (and I refuse to give my money to Leftists), I can’t really access them, but one of the articles they wrote recently was titled “No, Biden’s new border move isn’t like Trump’s ‘kids in cages’” when talking about this very facility being opened back up.
So they are very much aware of the hypocrisy of the Biden administration, having attacked Trump for keeping “kids in cages” and then proceeding to keep kids in concentration camps and in shipping containers. But since this is a Democrat in office that we’re talking about, they have to restructure and reframe the narrative.
“Kids in cages” is now “kids in friendly migrant facilities where they get all the things they wanted”.
But I have no issue with attacking Biden for this crap. I’m not even going to go with the hypocrisy angle, because hypocrisy largely doesn’t stick to the Left. I’m just going to take the Left’s place in their accusations.
The facility that Biden is putting migrant kids in looks like a concentration camp and the actual buildings like they are shipping containers.
Occupier Biden is keeping kids in concentration camps. That’s the story.
Of course, the Biden administration, knowing damn well that this makes them look bad even if the fake news media is on their side, is trying to rationalize and justify the decision to open it back up.
Biden’s Press Sec. Jen Psaki argued that they were reopening that facility “Because of COVID-19 protocols”, saying that “the capacity at existing Office of Refugee Resettlement shelters has been significantly reduced because, of course, you can’t have a child in every bed. There needs to be spacing, and we abide by the spacing to protect the kids who are living in those facilities for a short period of time.”
So they are saying “social distancing” is the reason for reopening that facility.
Well, of course the Chinese coronavirus is the reason for it. After all, even the Nazis prioritized putting people with health issues in the concentration camps first. And, of course, the Nazis also made sure to separate parents from their kids, much like the Biden administration is currently doing.
No, it doesn’t matter that these are unaccompanied kids. It’s up to the federal government to ensure that kids are with their parents and if they don’t do that, they are Nazis. Those are the rules that we have come to understand over the last four years, and those are the rules that we will make sure to enforce here today.
Further, the Biden administration is planning on “resettling” the kids in the States, as opposed to sending them back to their parents. So they are willing to put the kids’ lives at risk of abduction and abuse by just letting them go in the States? How positively inhumane.
It’s clear to me and to anyone who has been paying attention that Biden is literally Hitler and his government workers are Nazis.
I say that only half joking, seeing as he seeks to employ socialist policies much like Hitler did, including the restricting of free speech. Biden and the Democrats, entirely unsurprisingly, are far closer to Hitler than Trump ever was.
But it’s amusing seeing Biden completely flake on every campaign promise he made during the general election. He promised things like “no more kids in cages” and “no deportations in my first 100 days in office” among other things. He backtracked on basically everything, which partly explains his poor approval numbers. The other part that explains his poor approval numbers is that the majority of the country didn’t elect him into office in the first place and didn’t want him anywhere near power.
And now that he has power, even those who did vote for him are regretting having done so.
Biden is not only putting kids in cages, but also in shipping containers and sending them to concentration camps. Why is Joe Biden committing crimes against humanity?
And, unsurprisingly, Leftists which previously condemned Trump’s use of the facility are also changing their tune when Biden uses it.
AOC, who previously attacked Trump as holding “concentration camps”, gave Biden a slap on the wrist, at worst, tweeting:
“This is not okay, never has been okay, never will be okay – no matter the administration or party. Our immigration system is built on a carceral framework. It’s no accident that challenging how we approach both these issues are considered ‘controversial’ stances. They require reimagining our relationship to each other and challenging common assumptions we take for granted. It’s only 2 mos into this admin & our fraught, unjust immigration system will not transform in that time. That’s why bold reimagination is so impt. DHS shouldn’t exist, agencies should be reorganized, ICE gotta go, ban for-profit detention, create climate refugee status & more.”
Yeah, two things to say about this.
First of all, this “kids in cages” thing, as I alluded to earlier in the article, only began to seem like an issue because Trump was president. The Flores Settlement, which is the reason the detention center system operates as it does, came during the Clinton administration. Since then, two Republicans and one Democrat were president, with another Democrat being Occupier. If this has been such a massive ethical issue, why didn’t Obama do anything about it in eight years?
Secondly, Biden just reopened the migrant facility. That’s not an attempt to “transform” the “unjust immigration system”. That’s an enforcement of that immigration system, and a decision that he didn’t need to make, even if rationalizing it as having been because of the Chinese coronavirus.
The guy has also deported hundreds of illegal immigrants since he took office, despite promising not to do so throughout the campaign trail. So it doesn’t matter that it’s only been two months (one, actually, not two, but I can’t expect AOC to know how to count), because this is a conscious (as much as it can be with Dementia Joe) decision to reopen a facility that did not need to be reopened, particularly if you seek to change the immigration system.
So don’t give me that crap, and yes, AOC, it apparently is okay depending on the administration or party. You called them “concentration camps” outright when Trump was in office, and now that Biden reopens a facility, I see nowhere in your posts that you called them that again.
So allow me to take your place here: they are concentration camps and Biden is Hitler. Trying to justify this makes you a Nazi.
Biden should be impeached and imprisoned for crimes against humanity and every second he isn’t is a threat to national and human security.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
If the idea that the Left is racist against white people regarding concepts like being punctual is familiar to you, that’s because it’s similar to something I have written about in the past.
Back in July of 2020, I wrote about a graphic that The National Museum of African-American History & Culture had created (and which they have since taken down because of all the mockery they were receiving) that attributed positive things like self-reliance, independence, rational thinking and hard work to white people and white culture exclusively, while asserting that such things were actually negative and harmful.
Among the positive attributes that they asserted was negative was punctuality, following “rigid time schedules” and “Time viewed as a commodity.”
Well, Leftists are back once again attributing punctuality and good time-keeping to white people and asserting that such things are negative.
Back in late November, during a meeting of Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s Equity Task Force, one administrator who was recently named the director of the state Office of Equity, asserted that “white people and Europeans” had “an unhealthy focus on punctuality”, according to The Daily Wire.
Another member of the task force echoed that sentiment, saying “the office of equity should model practices and decolonize boards by identifying, dismantling, culture-bound rules and decorum, time-requirement, education, and what we call ‘expertise.’”
I, for one, say let them go for it. Go ahead and get rid of punctuality for yourselves, making sure that you never meet on time and don’t know when to do things. Such disorder makes things easier, culturally, for enemies of the Left such as myself.
Go ahead and “decolonize” time-keeping methods and practices. Go ahead and dismantle culture-bound rules and decorum, and things like “expertise”. Once you do that, we can get rid of Anthony Fauci and his “expertise”, right? Because “expertise” is a white thing, right? Go ahead and dismantle education. Marxist communist professors who were bought by China would subsequently lose their jobs as a result.
Maybe these people consider rational and objective thinking to be a white thing because they themselves are incapable of such thinking.
Dr. Karen Johnson, serving as equity and inclusion administrator (what a worthless position) for the Washington State Department of Corrections said in that November meeting:
“Most white people and Europeans are about agenda and to-do lists and tasks and ‘Oh we have thirty minutes for this’ and ‘Oh, time to move on,’ where people of color, maybe it matters, maybe it doesn’t. In South Africa, if we were meeting right here, 2:35, if Craig Bill (Director of the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs) walked in right now in South Africa, what would happen if they would stop, welcome him, ‘How was your weekend? You have any plans for Thanksgiving?’ and would bring him up to speed on what he missed – if we were in South Africa. If Craig Bill walked in right now in Tumwater, Washington we’d say ‘Hello’ and maybe somebody would – well, our chairs are gracious, so you won’t – would let him know ‘well, here we are’, but it’s basically, ‘This is where we are; just get with it.’”
So it’s likely that this Dr. Karen Johnson (maybe we should get rid of expertise if she has a doctorate and speaks English this poorly) was the one who asserted initially that white people and Europeans are unhealthily obsessed with punctuality. There are two things I want to discuss here.
First, if they were in South Africa, no one would be asking about people’s Thanksgiving plans because South Africans don’t celebrate Thanksgiving. That’s an American holiday. So that’s pretty racist that she would assume South Africans celebrate the things that Americans do. How dare she?
Secondly, she accuses white people and Europeans of being obsessed with punctuality and then proceeds to give an example of something that has nothing to do with punctuality. Asking people “how was your weekend? You have any plans for Thanksgiving?” even if done right before a meeting is not a punctuality thing, but a politeness thing. She implies that people in South Africa would be polite enough to ask those questions, but in America, the coworkers would not be polite enough (at least if they are white and, given what she says, not liberals) to ask such things and would just say “hello” and “here we are” and “just get with it,” in trying to maintain their schedule.
Which is extremely ironic, considering that politeness is another attribute that they gave to WHITE PEOPLE.
In that article I wrote in July, I pointed out how there is a point in the “Communication” section that said: “Be polite”, attributing politeness to white people.
So not only does she use an example of something unrelated to time-keeping and punctuality when attacking white people’s alleged obsession over punctuality, but the example she uses is contradictory to the racist, neo-Marxist piece of crap graphic that the National Museum of African-American History & Culture had, at one time, shared.
She takes one of their points, that punctuality is a white thing, while ignoring the politeness part also being a white thing. It’s quite amusing and not really surprising, to be honest.
But, again, let them be disorganized and attempt to “decolonize” things like punctuality. So long as this only affects the Left, I have no issue with the idiotic crap they want to attempt.
I take a similar approach to the way people vote. I have no issues at all if the Left wants to destroy a state if the people of that state vote such atrocities into power. The problem, however, comes in the fact that there are plenty of people who did not or do not vote for such things and they are getting screwed over. If the Left’s destructive policies only affected the Left, I’d have no problem with that at all.
You get the government you deserve, particularly if it’s the one you vote for. If the Left wants to destroy the concept of punctuality and this only affected the Left, I would be 100% in favor of them doing so.
But the problem comes in the fact that they are not content in sitting in the misery they create by themselves; they have to involve other people as well. In their “decolonization” of things like punctuality, they seek to alter all of America and its views on punctuality, not just Leftists and Leftist organizations.
They drag other people in to the crap that they fester, which is a big problem. So, with idiotic ideas like “decolonizing” punctuality, whatever the hell that means, rational people like myself have to push back on those things because they are extremely harmful.
So they must be defeated at every turn in every way.
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”
I have written countless articles about abortion and detailed with no pulled punches just how evil and twisted it is, and how evil and twisted those who most fervently support it are. But if you want to see just how evil abortion is, and how calling it “pro-choice” is nothing but a farce, I suggest you listen to the story I am about to share with you.
This comes from a LiveAction.org story from late last year. I had, on occasion, thought about talking about it or at least mentioning it, but seeing as the period between November 26 (the day that article was published) and at least the last week or so of January was relatively hectic, I hardly had much of a chance to talk about this. But it is a story that I do not want people to miss out on because it’s powerful.
In a book interestingly titled “Shout Your Abortion Too,” there is a story of a woman named Katie, who recalls the coerced abortion she was forced to undertake as well as the trauma that she had suffered at the hands of her toxic boyfriend and workers at Planned Parenthood.
According to LiveAction: “[Katie] and her boyfriend went to Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test, which was positive. While there, the Planned Parenthood worker asked them what they wanted to do about the baby. ‘My boyfriend spoke up, quickly and firmly, with one word, “ABORTION.” It was the first time that word had been spoken between us,’ said Katie.”
Katie went on to recall: “The counselor did not ask me if I agreed, or if we wanted any other information regarding what kind of support would be available to us if we decided to move forward with the pregnancy, nor did she mention the option of adoption.”
A bit of a red flag for those who might still argue that this is about “choice”, right? The girl was not given a choice. Matter of fact, it was the BOYFRIEND, the father-to-be, who made the choice for her. And the Planned Parenthood workers did not bat an eyelid at that whatsoever.
What, exactly, do you think would have happened if the boyfriend had suggested keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption? Do you think the PP worker would have remained silent? Or would they have said “this is your girlfriend’s choice, not your own”? And don’t tell me they would have said “well, discuss it amongst yourselves and arrive at a consensus” because there have been times when a girl got an abortion despite her boyfriend BEGGING her to not get one.
The Left presents people with the illusion of choice in many areas, and abortion is one of those. Women only have the “choice” regarding their baby if that choice is to kill it. Katie’s opinion didn’t matter at all here because the boyfriend wanted to get an abortion and Planned Parenthood makes the bulk of its money by doing that.
And instead of trying to give Katie any alternatives, the PP worker ENCOURAGED them to abort, saying that “abortion was the responsible choice to make since [they] were just college students without jobs or the means to provide a stable home for the baby,” insisting that they had their whole lives ahead of them to start a family.
What’s more, the PP worker also lied to Katie and pressured her to get an abortion quickly:
“She assured us by saying that at that point in the pregnancy, the embryo was just ‘undeveloped tissue’ but then added an urgent warning that we would want to act quickly because after a few more weeks ‘it would get a little more complicated.’”
I don’t know how many months pregnant Katie was at the time, but at no point in the pregnancy is the baby “just ‘undeveloped tissue.’” Life begins upon conception, the union of the father’s DNA through the sperm cell and the mother’s DNA through the egg cell, creating a brand new genetic code unique to that person and different from all others which came before or would come after.
It’s life. It is alive. It’s a person beginning their development. It’s not “undeveloped tissue”; it’s a developing human baby.
No one would look at a pregnant dog and say “ah, she’s just harboring undeveloped tissue within her womb”. So why would we treat human babies as less than a dog?
At any rate, LiveAction continues: “A few days later, Katie’s boyfriend called and made an appointment for an abortion. Katie called and canceled it. She didn’t want an abortion, and she argued with her boyfriend. She said his responses to her questions about keeping the baby or adoption ‘became more desperate and threatening.’”
“He was not ready to be a dad, he would not stick around if I had the baby, he assured me I would be on my own, he couldn’t handle his child being given up for adoption and knowing they were ‘out there’ somewhere,” said Katie.
Frankly, with this kind of behavior, it’s a wonder why Katie would not dump his dead-beat ass on the spot. I can understand that she was likely afraid of taking on the role of a mother pretty much on her own (no mention of Katie’s parents in this story, but I imagine they might have at least lent a hand unless they are as big a monster as the boyfriend is), but seriously, women should not stick with horrible men like that.
Despite that pressure, Katie held her ground to not get an abortion, but then her boyfriend resorted to emotional blackmail by threatening to take his own life:
“And then came the ultimate threat: he wouldn’t be able to live with himself if I chose to keep the baby without him. He’d kill himself instead. My boyfriend was not budging. Planned Parenthood had presented it as the only reasonable and responsible choice.”
Again, where’s Katie’s “right” to “choose” here? Can a liberal tell me that Katie’s boyfriend was in the wrong here? That coercing a woman to get an abortion through emotional blackmail and threats is the antithesis of the idea of “women’s right to choose”?
Ultimately, after her friends all also encouraged her to get an abortion (don’t befriend those who would encourage an abortion; such people are evil and make for terrible friends), Katie relented and went in for an appointment.
She recalls: “The waiting room was full of young girls; a lot of them with their moms, a few with presumably their boyfriends. No one talked and many were crying. It was the saddest and darkest place I’ve ever been.”
I would hope that, before getting an abortion, the girls would be crying. That at least shows their humanity and, frankly, that they do not really want to do this but feel as though they have no other choice.
Once again, the Left presents people with the illusion of choice. These girls are led to believe that they have no other choice apart from an abortion, but that they technically “can choose” not to get one. They are emotionally and psychologically manipulated to perform perhaps the most egregious act a human can perform upon another, and are led to believe there is no other way and that they must prioritize other things like school or a career, etc.
A woman who revels in the killing of her own offspring is worse than scum; a disgusting human being that can hardly be called such.
But such women are, thankfully, the fringe minority. Most women, I imagine, view abortion not as liberation but as a tough “choice”. Not that that makes it better at any capacity, nor does it excuse the act in any way, but many of these women are made victims by evil people who benefit from the termination of a human life, whether those people be terrible boyfriends or genocidal “doctors.”
In any case, Katie was, interestingly enough, shown an ultrasound of her baby at the clinic, where she realized how full of crap the Planned Parenthood workers were:
“When I saw the ultrasound, I was shocked that I could see an image of a baby, not tissue. I saw a heart beating but the sound was turned off. There was no time to process before I was ushered into the next room where a doctor and a nurse awaited me and told me to lay down and relax. My mind was spinning. I had just seen my baby!!”
The monsters didn’t give Katie a moment to reflect on the fact that THERE WAS LIFE GROWING INSIDE HER, and made sure she couldn’t back out of the procedure. “Nobody acknowledged the tears streaming down my face,” she went on to recall. “No one stopped to ask if I was sure about what I was about to do.”
Of course no one stopped her from doing it. THEY BENEFIT FROM KILLING PEOPLE. If allowed and had a financial incentive to do so, they would kidnap pregnant women and force an abortion on them ala Chinese style, that’s how vile and evil these people are.
They hold no regard whatsoever for the life growing inside a woman’s body and hold no regard to the mother’s feelings about it unless those feelings align with their financial and political goals.
Katie, during the procedure, had eventually heard the nurse say: “You got it. I just saw it come through the tube.”
It was upon hearing those words that Katie realized what she had done:
“Those words were an absolute soul-crushing reality. They could see the baby. The baby was big enough to SEE. And they just sucked an innocent baby out of my womb with a vacuum, through a tube, and into a canister. My mind was screaming at me. What had I done?!?... I was overwhelmed with incredible regret. And the shame, guilt, and grief were unbearable.”
Following the forced abortion, her relationship with her boyfriend further deteriorated, and she said that he had become physically and verbally abusive. Years later, Katie said: “There will always be an ache in my heart that wishes I had not taken the life of my child; that looks at each year wondering what their life would’ve looked like now.”
And Katie’s story is not necessarily unique. Roughly 73% of women with a history of abortion admitted in a 2018 survey that “they experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancies,” according to the Population Research Institute.
Over 50% of women reported that they had perceived great enough pressure to significantly influence their decision to abort, nearly 60% said that they aborted to “make others happy” and almost 30% said they did it because they were afraid of losing their partner if they didn’t abort. 66% of the surveyed women said that they knew in their hearts that abortion was wrong and 67.5% said that such a decision was the most difficult one of their whole lives.
Women are naturally drawn to protect their children. They have parental instincts to preserve the lives of their offspring ahead of even their own. The very concept of abortion is antithetical to a woman’s instincts and it’s why so many girls at those clinics are crying: they KNOW that what they are doing is wrong, but are led to believe by evil forces that they have no choice but to do wrong.
“You’re young, in college, unemployed, and have your whole life ahead of you. What makes you think you have the capability to take care of this baby and have a good life?” This is the kind of argument Satan uses to coerce people into living a life full of sin. No surprise, then, that the Left is such a fan.
May God open the eyes of all women everywhere to the recognition that abortion is wrong and to have the courage to stand up against this vile, evil, anti-woman, anti-human, anti-nature and anti-God atrocity.
“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.”
I will freely admit that that might be a cliched title, but it isn’t very often that I speak of matters so personal to me. I usually talk about what idiotic things Leftists said or pushed, or about what great things Trump would do as President, or generally tried my hand at some apologetics, defending the Christian faith from those who foolishly attack it at their own peril.
However, with the recent event of America’s Anchorman Rush Limbaugh passing away due to complications with cancer (screw cancer, by the way, and I really want to say something stronger but I feel like that wouldn’t honor Rush), I feel like I should take some time away from focusing on other current events such as the disaster that is the illegitimate Biden administration to just discuss Rush and what he meant to me personally.
I, unfortunately, never got to meet Rush, so it’s not like I can share some personal anecdote about the man of something we did together. But I listened to him as often as I could, particularly as I got older and began to pay attention to politics a little bit more.
I don’t exactly know what qualifies one to be a “Rush baby”, whether it means to have had his radio program on since I was literally a baby or at least a toddler, but I can call myself a “Rush teen”, if you will.
I began listening to him, admittedly, against my will. That’s not to say that I did not like Rush or that I was a mad liberal with vitriol and hatred in his heart. I was just a 14-year-old kid who recently moved to a new state and awaiting the movers to have all our stuff, there were few things to do apart from listening to the radio. At the time, I was hardly paying much attention to politics.
I remember occasionally watching Fox News (back when it was good and personalities like Bill O’Reilly were present) with my parents over the years, but again, could hardly care about the politics. I remember when Obama was elected president in 2008 and how disappointed my parents were about it. So I knew who was President of the United States by the time my family and I moved to the country, but again, being a kid, I hardly cared about that.
As a result, there was not much I cared about with regard to what Rush was talking about. I remember that Rush was railing on Obama and the Democrats as basically trying to be “Santa Claus” and just trying to win elections by giving out free stuff to Americans.
Keep in mind that this was around the time that Obamacare was being talked about the most.
But, again, as a 14-year-old kid whose interests lied primarily in playing Call of Duty or other games on his Xbox, the topics of discussion were barely important to me. But I kept listening, on and off, and began to pay more attention to politics as time went on, particularly around the time of the 2012 election.
Though I ashamedly supported Romney back then, a large part of the reason why is because, while even then I knew he wasn’t exactly the most conservative option (back then, I liked Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman and Rick Perry far more than Romney), he would likely still have made for a better president than what Obama was. In some ways, I still think that to be true. I think Romney would have made the economy better, because Republicans tend to be able to fix the economies that Democrats wreck. And this was a sentiment that Rush shared.
He backed Romney and supported him because, even if he was far from his first choice, he was a better option than Obama. He made the same rationalizations and justifications for supporting McCain, who was also not Rush’s first choice.
So I got invested a decent bit in politics back then, certainly more than what I previously had but obviously nowhere near as much as I do now. As a result, I began to pay more attention to what Rush was saying as well. It certainly helped that my dad would often put him on the radio when he picked me up from school, at least for the short amount of time that I wouldn’t take the bus home.
And so, my journey went as follows: I became a Republican in large part because my parents were Republicans and taught me right from wrong (for the most part, at least, as even they were still on that same journey as me). They, themselves, became Republicans because they were in finance, and what Republicans propose economically are what always made sense for them. Then, we became conservatives.
Funny enough, this happened in part because of Obama. Early in his administration, quite literally on his third day in office, Obama had reportedly told Republican leaders who were invited to the White House to “quit listening to Rush Limbaugh.” “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done. There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats. We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”
For all the “unifying” that Obama was seemingly trying to do there, he went on to say to a Republican critic: “I won. I will trump you on that.”
Clearly, Obama was as full of crap back then as we always knew he was. But at any rate, that’s not what I want to focus on. Following that moment in the White House, Fox News reported on it, and my mom asked: “Who’s Rush Limbaugh?”
She went on to look him up and that is how my parents (and eventually I) started listening to El Rushbo. So thank you, Obama. You are at least part of the reason as to why my family and I are as conservative as we are today.
And so, we became Republicans, and then through Rush, we became conservatives. After that is when my mom and I became Christians, some time later, at least.
And that’s all well and good, but you might be asking how that relates to what Rush means to me. Well, I think it was a little important to share this backstory of mine, detailing the journey of my conservative politics. It is because of Rush Limbaugh that I am a conservative, particularly as much of one as I am.
He (as well as my parents who also deserve credit for this) taught me not what to think but how to think. To analyze things with a critical eye. It’s why I analyze what Leftists say and can discern what they mean or imply from them.
I attended the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and that is a school from which one does not graduate. Even now, with Rush’s passing, there is plenty that we can learn and know from him.
It’s because of him that I have been writing these articles for the last four years. I even sought a career in radio so that I could become “the next Rush Limbaugh” before I realized that even speaking for half an hour became tiring for my throat. Not to mention I think I can convey messages more clearly in the written form, particularly as this mode of communication affords me more time to think about what I want to say and how to say it.
Of course, now, I no longer want to be “the next Rush Limbaugh” not merely because I hardly think I’m cut out for radio, but also because there simply cannot be a “next Rush Limbaugh”. When they made him, they broke the mold, as those who listened to Rush through Rush 24/7 understand. I cannot aspire to be someone I’m not, or the “next” someone I’m not. I can only be the best version of myself and I think that’s what Rush would want of me.
Kathryn Limbaugh opened Rush’s show on the 17th to convey the sad news of Rush’s passing. She pointed out how “Rush will forever be the greatest of all time. Rush was an extraordinary man, a gentle giant – brilliant, quick witted, genuinely kind, extremely generous, passionate, courageous, and the hardest working person I know…”
“He was polite and respectful to everyone he met. Even most recently when he was not feeling well in the hospital, he was so appreciative to every single doctor and nurse and custodian and first responder. He never wanted to put anyone out, and always thanked them profusely for their help.”
Rush was someone who unabashedly and unapologetically loved his country, our military, flag, Constitution, and Founding Fathers. It’s because of that love that he wanted to defeat the Left, who bear the exact opposite feelings about all those things.
He’s someone who touched the hearts of tens of millions of people every day for 32 years. You can tell what awesome things he did in his life by the way people reacted to his death. Those who loved him and love this country mourned, while those who loathed him and loathe this country vilely celebrated. He was loved by all the right people and hated by all the right people. I saw it as a badge of honor for Rush that the Left reacted the way that they did. That Rush had enemies means he stood up for something, and particularly, for the right thing.
That he was loved by God is infinitely more important than that he was hated by the Left and Satan. He now rests with the Lord, free from the evil cancer that damaged his body, and probably striking up a conversation with Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, to name a few, about how silly the Left is for believing they are headed for victory.
Rush was a big part of my life and a big part of how I have shaped my life and my beliefs. I didn’t always agree with Rush, though the times I disagreed were as few and far between as the times in which he was wrong. That is to say, I would disagree with him 0.2% of the time, agreeing with him the other 99.8%.
Though he and I never met, as I said earlier, he was my brother in Christ. I am young, so I don’t plan on meeting my Savior in heaven any time soon, and by extension, America’s Anchorman. But what I will try to do from now on will be the same as what I hopefully have been doing for the past four years: write truthful articles that convey why the Left is evil and ought to be defeated and destroyed. This is what Rush, in his own way, did for over 30 years. With talent on loan from God, and by the Grace of God, he did all he could with the time that the Lord gave him, and I hope to do the same.
God bless Rush Limbaugh and may his soul rest in peace, as we all know he is.
“For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.”
While it may be an exaggeration to say that Joe Biden’s brain has turned to mush, it’s not an exaggeration to point out how awful Joe Biden is at speaking, even when given pre-approved questions and topics, particularly as the dementia is wrecking his brain.
This was displayed in full for the first time since successfully stealing the election, as Occupier Biden made three newsworthy clips (though the MSM certainly won’t be focusing on those) during a recent CNN Townhall.
First, there was the racist statement regarding blacks and Latinos’ seeming inability to use the internet… I write to you through the internet being Latino myself.
Biden was asked by a black doctor about “racial disparities” in the distribution of the Chinese coronavirus vaccines. The doctor asked Biden: “[M]y question to you is considering COVID-19 and its significant impact on black Americans, especially here in Milwaukee and thus, the exacerbation of our racial disparities in health care, we have seen less than three percent of blacks and less than five percent of Hispanics given the total number of vaccines that have been administered to this point. Is this a priority for the Biden administration? And how will the disparities be addressed? And that’s both locally and nationally.”
He gave two strange responses to this question. First, he said: “Well, first of all, it is a priority, number one. Number two, there’s two reasons for it being the way it is. Number one, there is some history of blacks being used as guinea pigs in other experiments as I need not tell you, Doctor, over the last 50 to 75 to 100 years in America. So there is a concern about getting the vaccine whether it’s available or not.”
The second response he gave was: “Not everybody in the community, in the Hispanic and the African-American community, particularly in rural areas that are distant and/or inner city districts know how to use – know how to get online to determine how to get in line for that COVID vaccination at the Walgreen’s or at the particular store.”
The first response was clearly regarding the 1932 Tuskegee experiment, an infamous racial experiment on black men in Tuskegee, Alabama, which is infamous for supposedly being a study of syphilis, but the people studied were not given much information about what the researchers were doing (therefore making them unable to consent to being studied or quitting the experiment). The study was originally supposed to last only six months but went on for 40 years, and even when penicillin became a widely used treatment for syphilis, the researchers did not use it on the test subjects. And while I would cite that as one of the reasons as to why I would not get the vaccine (me being a minority AND a conservative, I doubt I am well-liked by the Leftists running the government and creating this vaccine), it is fair to say that others cite it for the same reason.
The reason I say this is a strange response is because you would think Biden WOULDN’T want to call back on this experiment, even if it’s to explain why some black people are not getting the vaccine.
As far as the second response goes, that’s a clear case of “soft bigotry of low expectations”. Even if you tried to defend Biden because he said “not everybody” in the community knows “how to get online” as implying that there are minorities who can get online so it’s not racist, consider that there is little reason apart from racism to believe something like that. If it’s about poor or no network availability due to rural areas generally not being as connected as urban or suburban areas, then why did he specify black and Latino communities? Sure, the topic is about “racial disparity”, but such internet issues are also present for white people in rural areas, right?
Is it that white people, even facing the same issues as blacks and Latinos in rural areas, all know how to get online while minorities don’t? Is that what Joe Biden is implying here?
And the rest of the townhall didn’t exactly get better from there.
At one point, Joe Biden spreads his Chinese owner’s talking points regarding Uyghur concentration camps in China.
“If you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been… victimized by the outer world when they haven’t been unified at home. So, the central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united, tightened control in China, and he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that. I point out to him, no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States, and so the idea that I’m not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in western mountains of China, and Taiwan, trying to end the One China Policy by making it forceful, I say – and by the way he says – he gets it. Culturally, there are different norms in each country and their leaders are expected to follow.”
Basically, he does three things here: First, he defends China as having been “victimized” by the outer world in the past as though no other nation in history has ever been victimized by other nations (China has victimized Taiwan, Tibet, Japan, and is trying to victimize Australia). Secondly, he, in a roundabout way, admits that he’s not the President of the United States because he is not going to speak out against what China is doing in Hong Kong or what they are doing to the Uyghurs as evidenced by what he said in the end, so by his own standard, he’s not the POTUS. The third thing he did is spread a second CCP propaganda lie (the first being the “victimization” thing) that Chinese treatment of Uyghurs is just “cultural norm.”
Biden is excusing the concentration camps and the genocide of Uyghurs as “oh, they are a different culture from our own and we need to respect that.” This is, in some ways, even worse than what happened in the German Holocaust. The numbers (as far as we know) of Uyghurs being killed and imprisoned are lower than the 10 to 20 million who were killed by the Nazis in concentration camps, but what makes this situation even worse than that one is that the world at least had an excuse for not doing anything about it: the world didn’t know.
We wouldn’t find out what Hitler and the Nazis were doing to millions of people until after the war ended. Nothing could be done about it at the time because it was unknown that it was even happening.
But the world doesn’t have an excuse this time. We can see, in real time, trains being loaded with Uyghur prisoners headed towards concentration camps, being put into forced labor at best and killed at worst.
Like I said in a previous article covering the topic of Uyghurs: following World War II and the Holocaust, the world said “never again,” and the world lied. Again, it makes it worse that we KNOW what China is doing to an entire subgroup of people and all the world can do is passively and timidly say “bad China, bad.” Of course, that’s nothing more than bad political theater, as politicians and world leaders like Joe Biden are on China’s payroll.
Whereas the first thing he said was stupid and racist, this is outright terrible and evil. Even if one were to buy the idea that killing Uyghur’s is just part of China’s culture (which it’s not), how exactly does that make it better? If it were part of white people’s culture to kill black people, would that make it okay? Would that mean that it should be respected as being part of “their culture” and we ought to tolerate it?
No, it wouldn’t, so then why in the world would we excuse the Chinese government (not the people themselves) killing and imprisoning Uyghurs (among others) as it being “part of their cultural norms”?
Certainly, no one who isn’t either on the CCP’s payroll or rooting for the CCP is going to agree with Biden on this. Both liberals and conservatives fault China for the crap they are pulling here, even if liberals are a bit more likely to side with China in how the government is run.
But Biden sure as hell isn’t going to do anything about it. And like he said, “no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States.” This disqualifies most Democrats and some Republicans who have run, have won, or intend to run for president, including Biden himself (though we all know he didn’t win and he’s not the president legitimately). Certainly, Biden doesn’t reflect the values of the United States because, again, both liberals and conservatives agree that China is at fault in running literal concentration camps, but he largely owes his fortune and possibly even his administration to Xi, so he’s not going to do a damn thing to upset him.
The final odd thing he said in this townhall, seemingly relatively early on in the show, was this: “Everybody knows I like kids better than people.”
He made the comment regarding CNN host Anderson Cooper’s new baby.
You can take this two ways: One, it kind of makes him sound like a pedophile, which, given pictures like the ones below, it’s not very difficult to imagine:
The second way you can take it is that he doesn’t consider kids to be people, which is also not difficult to imagine considering he is pro-abortion and has done plenty as Occupier to ensure as many babies are killed in the womb as currently possible.
Either way you take it, it sounds so weird and wrong. He obviously meant to say “adults” as opposed to “people” but still, given Biden’s track record of sexual harassment, including of young children, not to mention his track record of enabling child killings, it’s still super creepy and disturbing.
In any case, we knew it wouldn’t take too long before Dementia Joe made an appearance. This is far from the first time he’s said stupid things since becoming Occupier of the Oval Office, but it’s noteworthy how many newsworthy clips there were here. And, again, the fake news media is not going to focus too much on how clearly broken Joe Biden’s brain is.
“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.”
What socialism/communism destroys, capitalism restores. No country which was once capitalistic was improved or made better after experiencing socialism or communism, and countries which have tried socialism and communism but then turned to capitalism were made better for it.
This was the case for Germany post-World War II and for New Zealand over the last few decades.
Will it also be the case for Venezuela? I will soon reveal why I do not think so.
But let’s begin with post-WWII Germany and New Zealand. After World War II, Germany was in shambles not merely because they lost the war. The Nazis, being socialists (as the name “National Socialist” would imply, but if you don’t think that’s enough to tell you they were socialists, consider that they employed pretty much every line item the American Left wants to employ), were in charge of everything regarding how the economy worked. Well, “worked.” Few things were not run by the German government, it applied heavy price controls, rationing, needless bureaucracy, massive inflation, awful cronyism, etc.
It was your typical Marxist dystopia, much like we see with Cuba, Venezuela and saw with the Soviet Union and China (China is still communist, of course, but privatized things enough that famines were not really a thing anymore. It’s still largely a dystopia if you’re not at least fairly wealthy and you can only be fairly wealthy by sucking up to the government).
But Ludwig Erhard, who was West Germany’s Economics Minister in 1948, employed capitalist measures to free the economy from its socialist bonds.
Late economist William H. Peterson said, detailing what happened: “In 1948, on a June Sunday, without the knowledge or approval of the Allied military occupation authorities (who were of course away from their offices), West German Economics Minister Ludwig Erhard unilaterally and bravely issued a decree wiping out rationing and wage-price controls and introducing a new hard currency, the Deutsche-mark. The decree was effective immediately. Said Erhard to the stunned German people: ‘Now your only ration coupon is the mark.’”
“The American, British, and French authorities, who had appointed Erhard to his post, were aghast. Some charged that he had exceeded his defined powers, that he should be removed. But the deed was done. Said U.S. Commanding General Lucius Clay: ‘Herr Erhard, my advisers tell me you’re making a terrible mistake.’ ‘Don’t listen to them, General,’ Erhard replied, ‘my advisers tell me the same thing.’”
So the Allied forces in charge of West Germany, which were Americans, British and French, instituted some of the same socialistic policies that the Nazis put into place. Tells you a little about the kind of socialistic tendencies these “heralds of freedom” possessed, doesn’t it?
At any rate, Erhard abolished the price-control program, slashed tariffs, raised consumption taxes but cut income taxes by 15% and got rid of any disincentive to save money, leading West Germany to see incredible growth while the communist East Germany suffered under its communism.
Robert A. Peterson writes: “Almost immediately, the German economy sprang to life. The unemployed went back to work, food reappeared on store shelves, and the legendary productivity of the German people was unleashed. Within two years, industrial output tripled. By the early 1960s, Germany was the third greatest economic power in the world. And all of this occurred while West Germany was assimilating hundreds of thousands of East German refugees.”
It was regarded as the “German economic miracle”, though Erhard hardly thought of it as a miracle (in some ways, it certainly was, but I understand what Erhard means as it took planning and action and it didn’t come out of nowhere). “What has taken place in Germany… is anything but a miracle. It is the result of the honest efforts of a whole people who, in keeping with the principles of liberty, were given the opportunity of using personal initiative and human energy.”
Capitalism restored the German economy which was rattled and destroyed by the Nazis. Capitalism also restored the New Zealand economy which was overregulated by welfare state socialists.
In the two decades following the 1950s, when New Zealand was a top economy in the world, the large island nation saw welfare state economists and leaders overregulate the markets and cripple the economy.
According to the Foundation for Economic Education: “The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.”
“The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the ‘democratic socialism’ that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.”
After that period of the socialist experiment in New Zealand, the country began to turn things around when all farm subsidies were ended, tariffs were slashed by two-thirds, as were taxes slashed with the top rate being cut to 33 percent. During the mid-1980s and 1990s, the government sold its state enterprises, allowing them to be privatized. Starting a business was also made quite easy with severe deregulation and, for regulations which were not abolished, they were finally equally and consistently enforced. Compulsory union membership was abolished and union monopolies holding various labor markets were outlawed as well.
This led to New Zealand seeing 4 to 6 percent annual growth for years. Their housing market is still a mess and overregulated to Hell, but if the government of New Zealand recognizes that it also needs to be freed like the rest of the economy was, then things will get even better for them. It would also help to not institute anti-free speech and anti-gun regulations, which began to be implemented following the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting.
Regardless, capitalism freed and restored an economy which was wrecked by overregulation and nationalization of industries aka socialism.
Now, finally, let’s turn towards Venezuela. What, exactly, is prompting me to even suggest they might be turning away from socialism? Well, it’s a Bloomberg News article reporting that the Venezuelan government “is abandoning socialist doctrine by offloading key enterprises to private investors, offering profit in exchange for a share of revenue or products.”
“Dozens of chemical plants, coffee processors, grain silos and hotels confiscated over the past two decades have been transferred – but not sold – to private operations in so-called strategic alliances, nine people with knowledge of the matter said.”
Ramon Lobo, a legislator from the socialist party and former finance minister said: “We believe this is positive because it is the synchronization of the public with the private sector. The state acts as a supervisor and receives compensation.”
So is Venezuela turning away from socialism? Like the title says, yes and no. Notice that I’m not asking if they are turning towards capitalism. They are just turning away from socialism, at least in some ways. If anything, this just sounds like what Russia did following the collapse of the Soviet Union and what China has been doing for the past couple of decades: privatizing a little bit, but only transferring the regulatory power to businesses and corporations which are allied to the government.
This isn’t capitalism, it’s oligarchy. It’s only marginally better to socialism, and better than to allow the entire country to collapse under the weight of socialism, but it’s nowhere near enough for the people of Venezuela.
The Latin American country was once one of the wealthiest in the world, was ranked among the top 10 in GDP per capita and once had a labor force with higher productivity than even the United States. This was in the 1950s. In the 1970s, Venezuela began to flirt with socialism by nationalizing the petroleum sector, and the economy began to stall out at best. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected and in 2007, following his second re-election in 2006, he would nationalize Venezuela’s largest telecommunications company, CANTV, and announced “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized,” hinting at further nationalization of industries.
Of course, we know what followed this full embrace of socialism: hunger, destitution, pain, suffering, and attempts by Venezuelans to flee for freer countries.
Now, Venezuela seems to be only slightly moving away from socialism, but not fully letting go of the failed economic system which brought ruin to the once prosperous nation. Even a little bit of privatization helps to an extent, as even despite the oligarchical monopolies present in China, Russia, and the U.S., these countries are still doing fairly well, with varying levels of prosperity (the U.S. being the freest, but not exactly because it’s trying to be).
So further privatization will certainly help Venezuelans, but it’s not worth it to replace a centralized government tyranny with an amalgamation of corporate cronies and oligarchs with similar power and philosophies to Maduro. Though unofficially, it’s replacing one dictator for another, to some extent.
What Venezuela needs to do, as do China, Russia and the United States, is move away from socialism and government regulation of industries as much as possible. Germany tried that for a time, and it was very prosperous. New Zealand has been trying it, for the most part, and was prosperous as well. The United States was founded upon these virtues and long was prosperous because of them, even despite the attempts by globalists and communists to tear it down little by little.
French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu said in 1748: “Countries are well cultivated, not as they are fertile, but as they are free.” The freer the people, the better off the country will be.
I hope and pray that people will open their eyes and see what destruction socialism and communism bring, and realize that unrestrained capitalism is the only way for the largest number of people to live the best lives they can.
Socialism is marketed as seeking equality for all people. It achieves that only in the worst of ways by making people equally miserable and destitute. Even then, not all people are faced with this, as those in the government are made wealthier for it off the backs of the people.
To contrast Hugo Chavez: All that was nationalized, let it be privatized.
1 Peter 2:16
“Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.”
This basically exemplifies the two-tiered “justice” system that we live in in the United States. If you were to hide your income from the Fed, you would get audited by the IRS, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and spend about a decade in jail. But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hid the data of how many people he killed in nursing and retirement homes from Trump’s DOJ in order to avoid being investigated, and I highly doubt anything will come of it.
In a private meeting with New York Democrat lawmakers, Cuomo aide Melissa DeRosa apologized to said lawmakers, not to admit fault in how the administration handled the Chinese coronavirus pandemic in the state, but because hiding all this stuff made it harder for them in the election and inconvenienced them against their Republican opponents.
According to The New York Post, DeRosa had said that the Cuomo administration “had rebuffed a legislative request for the tally in August because ‘right around the same time, [President Trump] turns this into a giant political football.’”
“He starts tweeting that we killed everyone in nursing homes,” she continued. “He starts going after [New Jersey Gov. Phil] Murphy, starts going after Newsom, starts going after Gretchen Whitmer… [Trump] directs the Department of Justice to do an investigation into us. And basically, we froze. Because then we were in a position where we weren’t sure if what we were going to give to the Department of Justice, or what we give to you guys, what we start saying, was going to be used against us while we weren’t sure if there was going to be an investigation. That played a very large role into this.”
“So we do apologize. I do understand the position that [Democrats] were put in. I know that it is not fair. It was not our intention to put you into that political position with the Republicans.”
The first indication of any semblance of an apology from the Cuomo administration regarding how they handled the Chinese coronavirus, and it isn’t directed at the people of New York, nor at the families of those who they killed, but at the Democrat candidates who were “inconvenienced” by the covering up of genocide by the governor. This is right out of a Hollywood movie in terms of an evil government organization.
The New York Post also points out that they weren’t just lying to the Feds (a crime which would land pretty much anyone else in jail, but not to the ruling class), but also to the media (no surprise there) and even “fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by the Empire Center on Public Policy.”
They tried their damned hardest to make sure that the number of people that they killed would not be released to the public. And largely for political reasons, as DeRosa pointed out.
Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said in a prepared statement: “We explained that the Trump administration was in the midst of a politically motivated effort to blame democratic states for COVID deaths and that we were cooperating with Federal document productions and that was the priority and now that it is over we can address the state legislature.”
Politically motivated or not, Trump was CORRECTLY pointing out that Democrats were doing a terrible job in handling the Chinese coronavirus and correctly pointed out that Cuomo outright KILLED thousands of people through just his March 25 nursing home executive order alone. Their effort to hide that information was, among the biggest things, politically motivated because if they showed everyone how incompetent, at best, Democrats are in governing, fewer people would have a reason to vote for Biden over Trump. They wanted Trump out and kept damaging information from the public in order to achieve that.
They attack Trump with exactly what they themselves are culpable of, but there’s nothing new about that.
At any rate, The NY Post also pointed out that last month, NY AG Letitia James released (for some reason) quite the damning report about the estimation of nursing home deaths in the state, and Health Commissioner Howard Zucker finally relented and released figures showing that, by January 19, 12,743 people had died in nursing homes.
It’s worth mentioning that a day before that number was released, the NY DOH was publicly acknowledging only 8,711 deaths in nursing homes, which in itself showed how incompetent, at best, Cuomo is.
Further, in a Wednesday letter to lawmakers, Zucker acknowledged that the tally had risen to 13,297, and that number climes to 15,049 when counting assisted living/adult care facilities.
It’s because of that report by the NY Attorney General that Cuomo went on to have a rather controversial press conference (to an extent, seeing as the fake news media made sure to bury that conference as much as they could so as to not hurt their comrade) in which he said: “Who cares [if they] died in the hospital, died in a nursing home? They died.”
That was Cuomo’s “What difference does it make?” moment, but the fake news media made sure to keep that from being known to as many people as possible, instead trying to center around the sham second impeachment of Trump which just about NOBODY cares about because everyone knows it’s a sham.
Even *I* haven’t talked much about it because it’s pretty much irrelevant. Trump is, unsurprisingly, innocent of everything they are accusing him of, and the entire process is so unconstitutional and illegitimate that even CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, who HATES Trump, wanted no part in it. The only reason they were trying to convict him now that he’s out of office is so that they could try to say that he can’t run again because conviction means he legally can’t run for office again. Which would have been more believable and a bigger threat if this wasn’t an unconstitutional and illegal trial, therefore even if Trump had been convicted (which he wasn't going to be anyway), why would he not run again anyway?
But at any rate, returning to the subject of this article, Andrew Cuomo undoubtedly deserves to go to jail. If not for carrying on a genocide of the elderly, at the very least for lying to the Feds. They went after Michael Flynn for him FORGETTING a detail he had testified to months earlier, so why would the Feds not go after Cuomo for lying to them about how many people he’s killed?
That is the kind of question we could realistically ask ourselves if we lived in a just, or at least impartial and law-abiding/enforcing, society. Like I said in the opening of this article, the situation exemplifies the two-tiered justice system that exists in this country.
If you or I were to hide information from the government, or if Cuomo were a Republican (non-Establishment, of course), the DOJ would come hard on the culprits, the FBI would be raiding offices, the works. But Cuomo is a comrade of the establishment, so he will get away with it.
During the Wednesday conference with lawmakers, DeRosa said that it appeared that the DOJ would not be going after them for the genocide they carried out: “All signs point to they are not looking at this, they’ve dropped it. They never formally opened an investigation. They sent a letter asking a number of questions and then we satisfied those questions and it appears that they’re gone.”
Of course they’re gone, the establishment never goes after their own. And, by the way, this would still be the case even if Trump were currently serving his earned second term. Keep in mind that Cuomo was actively killing the elderly in his state at the very least beginning on March 25, when he gave his executive order to fill nursing and retirement homes with sick people. That was in 2020, when Trump was still the sitting president and Barr was his AG. Barr, being an establishment rat, had zero intention whatsoever to investigate Cuomo’s crimes against humanity.
Cuomo absolutely deserves to be thrown in prison for a number of crimes, the least of which was lying to the federal government, but just because he deserves it doesn’t mean that that’s what he’ll get.
Well, I say that, I don’t know exactly what will happen. Maybe some day, he will be thrown in prison like he should but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it, particularly any time soon.
Even if any investigation of him were to be opened, like one was opened for the Clinton emails by Obama’s DOJ, it won’t result in anything resembling justice, just like the Clinton investigation.
But they will one day receive the just punishment that they deserve, whether in this life or the next.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
As Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.” Those who call evil things “good” and “righteous” are heathens as are those who call good things “evil” or “dangerous”. Often, those people are one and the same: those who are not Christians, and at best, only profess faith as opposed to possessing it.
That is the kind of person that is involved with Washington National Cathedral, which invited a guest preacher named Max Lucado who believes in the biblical point that homosexuality is a sin (because it is) and abhorrent to God (because it is).
A petition was written and addressed to the church, calling Lucado’s correct theology “dangerous” and urged the church to disinvite him:
“Lucado’s teachings and preaching inflicts active harm on LGBTQ people. To cite one example, in 2004 he wrote of his fears that homosexuality would lead to ‘legalized incest’ and likened same-sex marriage to incest and bestiality.”
“Fear-mongering and dehumanizing messages from powerful speakers like Lucado have been used to justify rollbacks of LGBTQ rights and to exclude LGBTQ people from civil protections and sacred rites. To our knowledge, Lucado has not publicly renounced these views.”
The petition also appealed to the fact that National Cathedral houses the remains of a gay college student who was brutally beaten and murdered in 1998, all but actively charging Lucado with holding a theology which was “responsible” for that tragedy:
“Matthew Shepard’s remains were entrusted to the care of this cathedral. Inviting a man who preaches the kind of dangerous theology that promotes oppression of and violence toward the LGBTQ community does not honor that trust nor serve his memory.”
“If Lucado wishes to use this opportunity to renounce his hateful views, this is not the appropriate forum or context. This is not an opportunity for easy healing or ‘bringing together’, as though the question of the full belovedness of LGBTQ people is a simple argument or difference of opinion. Lucado has inflicted serious harm. If healing is to take place, Lucado has much work to do before it can begin.”
It’s bemusing how often these whiny people cry “violence” at any opinion which disagrees with their own. At no point has any Christian called for what happened to Matthew Shepard to happen to other gay people. Unless in self-defense or in war, killing just isn’t right. But that isn’t to say that Shepard was anything close to a saint because people who embrace their sin cannot be considered saints (saints, by the way, are those whom are saved, not merely those whom the Catholic church gives the title of “Saint”).
The only dangerous theology is the one which twists God’s word, because such a theology is Satan’s, not God’s.
Romans 1:18-32 says:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
God, through the apostle Paul, reaffirms what had been found elsewhere in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that God considers such immoral sexual acts to be sinful and lead to spiritual death. And don’t tell me “it’s not lust, or just about sex, it’s also about love”, because no, it isn’t. Love is not defined by men; it is defined by God. God loves His children, He loves His Church. Love is not lust. There is passion in love, for sure, including sexual passion. Sex within marriage is not detestable to God. God made us to feel pleasure in sex because sex, in and of itself, isn’t a bad thing. What is a bad thing is sex outside of marriage and sex between and amongst people who are of the same sex, same familial line, or different species.
Homosexuality is a sin and an abhorrent thing to God. To declare such a position a “dangerous theology” is, in itself, dangerous theology. In fact, it's not theology, because theology is the study of God. It is what it claims other things are, which is why I began this article with that Isaiah verse. They are calling God’s theology and doctrine “dangerous” because of the truth which it speaks: homosexuality is a sin.
But now, you may be thinking why it is that I titled this article the way that I did. That petition was clearly written by either members of the congregation or the community in general, definitely not people who have decision-making power regarding who gets to speak and preach at the church. So, then, why am I saying that Satan runs the churches (or at least this one)? Well, here’s the thing, despite the fact that the church is holding firm on their decision to allow Lucado to preach, they themselves are guilty of propelling pro-LGBT and anti-biblical theology.
That they reportedly house the remains of a gay college student showcases that they side with men as opposed to God.
In a response to the petition, Dean Randy Hollerith said:
“As you know, this Cathedral has long been a beacon for LGBTQ inclusion, and we believe in that because we believe the Gospel calls us to nothing short of full embrace and inclusion. That said, I understand why Max’s earlier statements on LGBTQ issues would cause concern, and I want you to know that I share your concerns. As an ally of the LGBTQ community myself, it grieves me when churches or religion are used as weapons against God’s LGBTQ children.”
Yeah, the guy is a blasphemer, undoubtedly.
First of all, the Gospel does NOT call for “full embrace and inclusion.” Read those verses in Romans 1 again to see that. Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
We are not called to embrace evil or include evil in our midst. And make no mistake, homosexuality is evil. It is a sin, after all, which is evil and leads to death. We are forgiven of our sins when we repent of them, but they are sins nonetheless and those whom embrace sin will die by them.
God doesn’t include unrighteous people into His kingdom, and among those unrighteous, He counts homosexuals. Why, then, would we be inclusive of homosexuality? I don’t think we should kill or actively harm them, but we don’t have to do them any favors either.
Second, and perhaps most importantly, GOD DOES NOT HAVE LGBTQ CHILDREN! That ticked me off the most, even more than the nonsensical petition.
The children of God are those whom He adopted into His heavenly family. Those whom have received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are counted among the children of God, siblings of Christ. God washes away sin; He doesn’t include it with us when we are saved. So God doesn’t have LGBT children.
Not everyone is a child of God. I used to mistakenly think the opposite, but that was wrong. There is no universal brotherhood of man because for that to be the case, there would have to be a universal childhood of man under God. Not everyone whom God creates does He save, and so, not everyone whom God allows to be alive does He consider His child.
So to repeat myself once more, God doesn’t have LGBT children. He has children who used to be gay, as He has children who used to be idolaters, sexually immoral, murderers, etc., but whom have repented of their sins, received Christ as their Lord and Savior, and their sins were washed away.
Returning to that passage in 1 Corinthians, the immediate passage that follows is 1 Corinthians 6:11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Sin is a death sentence, but repentance leads to salvation. We are called to not tolerate evil, and you can see clearly what leads to tolerance of evil: men pretending to be women, entering women’s sports and destroying all competition, demanding that they be allowed to use women’s restrooms and forcing women to be extremely uncomfortable and fear sexual molestation or rape. Supposed Catholic preachers who are often scandalously found to have raped or molested young children. And worst of all, the straying of entire people away from the Word of God and the Light of the Lord.
Satan was defeated nearly 2,000 years ago, but he is dragging as many people as he can with him. Well, perhaps that’s not how I should phrase it, because that would be to assume that people’s default setting would be of salvation, which it’s not. But there is a difference between the weak and the wicked, and we can see who the wicked are: those who assert, with no uncertain words, that the Bible’s teachings are a “dangerous theology”, and those who consider themselves to be an ally of LGBT people, which is to be an ally of evil.
May God curse the people who assert that homosexuality is a virtue and not a sin, as well as those who call themselves allies of this evil, and may He open the eyes of the weak who are being led into the darkness by the evil one.
After all, even I used to think, erroneously, that homosexuality was okay and that gay marriage was fine. That was, obviously, before I became a Christian, but God opened my eyes to the Truth.
“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
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...