In a recent House Oversight Committee, socialist lunatic and less-popular-than-Trump-in-her-own-state Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel if inaction or even delayed action on climate change could cost American lives, which both said “yes” to, which AOC agreed with.
Ignoring the fact that this is basically like asking your mom if you really are a “handsome boy” (of course she's going to say you are. SHE'S YOUR MOM), what all of these people are saying is flatly untrue.
In my previous article about climate change, specifically man-made climate change, I talked about how our CO2 emissions are completely unnoticeable in our climate and taking everyone out of the planet would not make any difference whatsoever in how warm or cold the planet would get for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that God is the one in control of the planet, not us.
So from that alone, we can see the falsehoods of AOC’s, John Kerry’s and Chuck Hagel’s statement and assumptions. There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We have no control over it, so no resolution will do anything to “remedy” the false problem.
And certainly, not acting on it or “delaying” action on it is not going to cost lives whatsoever. Climate change has not killed anyone ever. People can die from being too cold or too hot, no doubt, but the long-term change of the climate is not responsible for any deaths. It’d be like claiming that water slowly kills people because we all drink it and eventually die. People certainly do die, eventually, but water or the changing climate is not the culprit (unless someone drowns, of course).
However, I know of something that will 100% cause American deaths if applied: the Green New Deal.
While I’ve already talked extensively about it, I felt it necessary to mention this considering AOC’s chosen words of climate change inaction or delay-of-action would cost American lives.
We already are fairly familiar with the concept that the GND would cost nearly $100 TRILLION on American taxpayers, but one little article from RealClear Politics and one table in that article really helps put that massive number into perspective.
The article I am talking about is titled: “Why the Green New Deal is Financially Lethal”. Now, that is as obvious a statement to make as if one where to write an article saying: “Why Michael Jordan is a Basketball Legend.” Of course MJ is a basketball legend and of course the Green New Deal is financially lethal. The only difference here is that there are really stupid people out there (namely children who choose to skip school to yell at old ladies that they need to implement the GND) who think the GND is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring nothing but good things like a saved planet, unicorns, free money for everyone and not ever having to worry about anything ever.
So the writer of the article mentions in great detail just why the GND would be so disastrous for Americans.
The article says that “the top 50% of all earners account for about $8 trillion - $9 trillion in Americans’ income and produce somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in tax receipts (excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes). The top 10% account for only half of this income but 70% of the taxes. The lower half contribute a mere 2.7% of income taxes.”
In other words, not even the richest of the rich have the money to pay for even 10% of the estimated cost of the Green New Deal, even if you were to literally take all of their money. Which, of course, means that everyone else will be forced to contribute, so the GND is not only a “tax on the rich”. It’s a tax on everyone, which means those already at the bottom will suffer the most.
The article also shows a table that I will detail to you. The table is split into three categories: the “goal” or the planned portion of the GND, the estimated cost of that plan and the estimated cost per household, all for the first ten years of the GND were it to be applied starting in 2020.
The table reads as follows:
Goal: Low-Carbon Electricity Grid; Estimated cost: $5.4 trillion; Estimated cost per household: $39,000.
In other words, each household will be forced to pay an extra $39,000. Now, I don’t think this is per year, but a total cost, but keep in mind that that’s just for ONE aspect of the Green New Deal. Let’s keep going, shall we?
Goal: Net Zero Emissions Transport System; Estimated cost: $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion; estimated cost per household: $9,000 to $20,000.
Goal: Guaranteed Jobs; Estimated cost: $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion; cost per household: $49,000 to $322,000.
Goal: Universal Health Care; Estimated cost: $36 trillion; cost per household: $260,000.
Goal: Guaranteed Green Housing; Estimated cost: $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion; cost per household: $4,000 to $12,000.
Goal: Food Security; Estimated cost: $1.5 billion; cost per household: $10.
I also want you to keep in mind that this table is just for the first roughly 10 years of the Green New Deal (and this table also doesn’t include things like eliminating air travel and implementing a train system in its place, etc.). All of these costs are for the first 10 years of the resolution. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can make at least $361,000 every ten years (and that’s using the low estimate costs) to pay in taxes AND STILL PAY THINGS LIKE RENT, WATER, FOOD AND TAXES OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL!
The average family income per year in the U.S. is around $56,000. Times ten, that’s $560,000, but that’s before tax. Those who make that much money per year are charged a 12% tax rate UNDER TRUMP’S TAX RATE WHICH THE LEFT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY JACK UP!
And that’s just income tax. With only that, people making the average for a household will be left with only $50,000 after income tax alone (roughly). So there is even less money to take from the pool to pay for any one of these items included in the Green New Deal, let alone all of it. My point here is that people simply can’t possibly afford paying the taxes from the Green New Deal AND afford to live even remotely comfortably.
And like I’ve said multiple times: socialism doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Those at the top are made poorer under socialism (unless they are in the government) and those who already were poor are made poorer still. Just look at Venezuela. They used to be one of, if not the richest nation in Latin America, but after years of socialism, the government is rationing ELECTRICITY!
And by the way, don’t think that just because we are not them that we can’t end up like them. Universal healthcare, which is supposed to be free, is notorious for having to ration its supplies. In Great Britain, for example, the elderly are forced to go blind because of rationing in their healthcare system. They can’t get surgeries to correct or even save their eyesight, so they go blind.
And in Venezuela, hospitals barely have the supplies to treat their patients, so you bet there’s a lot of rationing going around.
So those who really need healthcare, those at the bottom, are made to suffer the most. They are the most likely to get sick and/or hurt and are the most likely to need healthcare that is now made to serve the “greater good”, resulting in rationing and a lower standard of healthcare.
Proposals like the Green New Deal are truly what would bring about American deaths.
“But it’s supposed to help the environment,” I hear you say. Yeah, well, a whole lot of good that’s gonna do if we are the only ones stupid enough to do this. The GND, even if it could actually do what is advertised of it: save the planet, is still only an American proposal. The biggest carbon gas emitters in the world are India and China and you don’t see them give a single flying you-know-what about the environment. They are not going to implement something as stupid as the GND BECAUSE THEY DON’T NEED TO! India is already socialist enough. China is literally communist. They already have all the power they could want (of course, people always want more, but still).
The REAL point of the Green New Deal is to force America to make a hard turn towards socialism, where the government regulates everything (and I do mean everything, if California has considered text taxes and “drinking water” taxes). The REAL point of the GND is to fundamentally change America into an unrecognizable socialist monster, something it was never meant to be.
The REAL point of the GND is to give people like AOC as much control over you as they can get. As a result, not only are the people left without any freedom whatsoever, but they are left to never experience the benefits that were promised.
People are promised that the GND would “solve” climate change. It can’t for the reasons I stated in the beginning. People are promised that the GND would provide people with healthcare. Yeah, Venezuelan-style healthcare. People are promised that the GND would provide guaranteed jobs for everyone. It would literally terminate the vast majority of jobs today.
And it’s the same song and dance as it’s ever been. Lenin promised the people of Russia power. He gave himself all the power. All dictators promise people the world if they help them get into power. It always ends the same way: with the dictators living with all the power and the people left to be their worthless subjects.
Like the devil, the Left promises people the whole world, but it’s always one massive lie. Satan promised Eve she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But that came at the cost of her and Adam being kicked out of literal paradise. The Left promises safety from a fictitious man-made change in climate, but at the cost of individual freedom.
Adam and Eve did not even become like God by eating of the forbidden fruit. The first thing they did upon eating the fruit is acknowledge their nakedness – not their sin against God, but their shameful nakedness. What knowledge of good and evil did they receive, then? Certainly not one akin to God’s.
Likewise, the American people would not receive the advertised benefits of this proposal. All they would receive is being kicked out of capitalist paradise.
These are promises that are meant to ensnare people, but will never actually come to fruition. Only Satan benefited from tricking Eve and only the government benefits from socialism.
But certainly, both Satan and socialists are eventually punished by God.
The Green New Deal, with its high-cost plans, is the only thing that would actually cost Americans their lives. It is financial suicide that could lead to actual suicide for many. One can only hope nothing close to the Green New Deal is ever made into law, for that would mark the official end of the United States of America.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We’ve likely all seen Jim Acosta’s video of him at the border, pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be a crisis or emergency like Trump is talking about, but failing to realize that he is walking right next to steel slats much like Trump wants to build in much of the Southern Border. That gaffe has been rightly called a self-own.
But once in a while, you get a self-own so magnificent, you wonder if the person responsible for it has any idea what he or she has done.
While Jim Acosta made a short video about his own opinions on the state of the border, Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank unwittingly made perhaps one of the best cases I’ve ever seen against Obama and Leftist policies.
Now, before you ask: yes, T.A. Frank is, himself, a Democrat.
Vanity Fair is one of the most Left-leaning sites out there, and that’s saying a lot. Which is why it’s so surprising to see them write the following piece and publish it on their site.
Frank’s article is titled: “Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning On Obama’s Legacy.”
Pretty juicy and interesting title.
But it’s what he says next that is even juicier:
“Obama was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal, but many of the country’s most ominous trends also proceeded apace under his watch…”
That was his subhead.
Now, I won’t go over everything in the article. He begins by talking about this difference in Washington between what is considered the establishment, which wishes to maintain the status quo (I would argue somewhat differently, but fine), and the radicals on both the Democrat and Republican parties.
Frank says that, while much of Obama’s rhetoric was more on the radical Left of the spectrum, much of his actions were fairly establishmentarian.
He argues that when the establishment told Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, he did just that. When “they told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed,” he “hid them”. When “they said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky”, he “avoided it”. When “they said that our trade agreements enriched the nation”, he “promoted them”. And when they “called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya”, “he toppled its leader”.
Basically, Frank argues that Obama was at the beck and call of the Washington Establishment and he would do pretty much whatever they told him to do, even though Frank also argues that Obama was not, himself, an establishment President.
Remember the days when the media would not dare attack or challenge Obama in any way whatsoever? They would stick up for him no matter what, so for this guy to be saying these things, even if Obama has not been President for two years, is pretty fascinating and unexpected.
Now, the reason Frank argues for saying these sorts of things is that 2020 Democrat candidates have to look at how to tackle Trump, whom he says is a wild card of a candidate. (He also says Trump is failing in countless ways, which I would strongly disagree with, but to each their own).
He argues that since Obama was so rooted in establishmentarianism, Dem candidates may want to look at what might be best for them. He says Elizabeth Warren might want people to think she’s a radical and Joe Biden wants people to consider him the establishment choice.
As far as Warren goes, I don’t think she has much hope of winning the nomination, if I’m honest. That DNA test result that she stupidly claimed proved her heritage when it did the exact opposite has seriously derailed any chances she may have had at becoming the Dem nominee.
Biden, on the other hand, might have the best shot out of anyone to be the Dem candidate, even if he is more of an establishment guy and many other Leftists seek a radical.
But here’s the thing: like I said before, Frank makes the best case against Leftism as well.
There are two paragraphs I want to point towards, where he makes the best case against Leftist policies, even if he does not outright make any connections between a cause (Leftist policies) and effect (the negative things I am about to share with you).
Without further ado, here are the two paragraphs I’m talking about:
After talking about the differences between the establishment and the radicals in both parties, he writes: “Where does this leave us (Democrats), and what does it portend for Democrats in 2020? On the one hand, it’s unfair to call Barack Obama an establishment president with all the status-quo overtones of the term. He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments. On the other hand, many of the country’s most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch. The financialization of the economy kept increasing (whatever that means). Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers – a hundred here, a couple of hundred there – kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions.”
“The concise and indispensable new book The Nationalist Revival, by the left-leaning John B. Judis, contains one especially haunting statistic: 3.4 million jobs lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of these forgotten Americans, Obama’s final State of the Union address lauding a manufacturing surge rang hollow, and so did his vision of making ‘change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.’ They had already heard, many times, that ‘they may have to retool, they may have to re-train.’ It was Bill Clinton, still a canny reader of the public, at times, who had to observe that ‘millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it.’”
That is an awful lot to go through and I cannot possibly go through everything and still keep this article at standard length.
One of the main things I want to point out is that, in the first paragraph, as I have stated previously, Frank unwittingly makes the best case against Leftism.
He recognizes all the things that Obama was doing. And he also recognizes many of the ominous things that were happening in pace with the things Obama was doing. But he still somehow does not make the connection between the two of them.
What Obama was doing was choking the American economy and allowing for other countries to make deals with us where we would be utterly screwed. The Paris deal, as an example, is not something we needed to be a part of at any point. We were spending a ton more money as part of the deal in “fighting” climate change. However, with Trump pulling us out of the deal, we still manage to meet the expectations and requirements of the Paris deal WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR IT!
Another thing I want to point out which is interesting to me is one of the negatives he lists in the first paragraph. “Illegal border-crossers kept coming”.
Not only am I surprised that he is using the term “illegal” because those who consider themselves to be “woke” would never use that term, but I am also surprised that he sees that as any sort of problem at all.
Given the current rhetoric of many on the Left, the idea of an America with open borders is enticing. And yet, Frank notes that this unlawful act is a negative associated with the Obama administration.
You don’t see that very often. And, funny enough, it’s yet another reason I cannot believe the guy is not making a connection between the things Obama was doing and the negative things that came along with those things.
Notice how many of the negatives he listed are slowly but surely getting resolved now that Trump is President. Trump, as many on the Left will note, is undoing pretty much everything Obama set out to do and actually managed to do.
Trade policy is different now than with Obama. Obama made sure other countries got the better end of the deal while the U.S. paid for it. Trump makes sure the opposite is true: we get the better end of the deal.
Illegal border-crossing, while that’s still an ongoing thing and continues to escalate, is something Trump has literally based his entire campaign around. He won on the Wall. Even Chuck Schumer said that people voted for the Wall before he caught himself and rephrased it as “some people” voted for the Wall.
Trump won on the issue of addressing and fixing illegal immigration. And while Obama was dubbed the “deporter-in-chief”, he hardly helped secure the border all that much more (even though he used to be in favor of building walls).
Wherever there is a wall at the southern border, such as San Diego, there is considerably less illegal border-crossing than wherever there are no walls. Jim Acosta himself showed that, as I mentioned in the beginning, where there is a wall, there is no crisis.
It’s funny what happens when you get rid of the cause of some effects. The economic policies Obama enacted killed jobs, while the policies Trump has enacted have created them.
This is why I say Frank makes the best case against Leftism. Everything Obama did was Leftist policy. All of it. And what was the result? Jobs gone, people suffering, and America declining. Take away all those Leftist policies and what do you get? Jobs returning, people prospering, and America surging.
I have gone as far as to bookmark that article on Chrome to make sure to come back to it and point out that even one of the Left’s own journalists has noted Obama’s supposed accomplishments and the things that came with those accomplishments, even if he does not recognize their cause-and-effect relationship. According to the Logical Law of Causality, every effect must have a cause. Obama's policies were the cause. And indebtedness, joblessness, etc. were the effect. By eliminating Obama's policies (cause), you get the opposite results of more jobs, more prosperity, etc. (effect), which is exactly what President Trump is doing.
Thank you, Mr. Frank, for the truly great gift you have bestowed upon us. Here’s hoping that if you’re smart enough to recognize the bad things that came along the things Obama did, you will be smart enough to recognize the cause and effect of Leftist policies.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I hardly need a poll to tell me what I know to be true: the fake news media is far more divisive than Trump ever could be. However, that does not mean I do not smile at seeing many people agreeing with me on this issue.
Recently, a Morning Consult poll was released, asking 2,435 voters (so a large sample size) if Trump and the media have done more to divide the country than unite it. According to the poll, an overwhelming 64% of registered voters “said the press has done more to divide the country than unite it since Trump took office…”
56% said the same about Trump, but we’ll get to that momentarily.
The poll also shows percentages according to political party affiliation. According to the poll, 88% of Democrats said Trump was divisive, but a surprising 46% said the press was divisive.
With Independents, 67% said the media was divisive, compared to 54% who said that of Trump.
With Republicans, 80% said the press was divisive and 25% said Trump was.
Many of these numbers are pretty fascinating and good, in my opinion.
That 88% of Dems saying Trump is divisive does not surprise me. Frankly, what surprises me is that it’s not in the 90 percentile. However, that 46% of Dems saying the press was divisive is quite incredible and says an awful lot about the lack of credibility the fake news media has with their own target demographic, who should theoretically always support them.
It’s not exactly a majority, being less than 50%, but it’s incredibly close. As for Independents, who tend to go one way or the other, depending on the person (Sanders is technically an Independent, though he’s a far-Left Independent), they tend to be people who are dissatisfied with both parties, and given the Left’s recent behavior, I suspect there are more Independents today than even a few years ago, given the recent Walk Away movement.
67% of Independents saying the media is divisive is not a good thing for Democrats. And while 54% also say Trump is divisive, that’s still far less than those who point towards the media’s divisiveness.
As far as Republicans go, neither number really surprises me too much. I would think more than just 80% of Republicans would say the media is divisive, and I know very well that there are NeverTrump Republicans out there, so that 25% is actually fairly low and also a good sign for Trump.
Another Morning Consult/Politico poll back in July found that “28 percent of voters said they had ‘a lot’ of confidence in the presidency – more than twice the 13 percent who said the same of television news and double the 14 percent who said the same of newspapers.”
But these numbers generally point out what should really be crystal clear to anyone paying attention: the media is largely responsible for the divisiveness in our country.
Now, Trump being President, and being one who pushes back against the Left, naturally will also cause some divisiveness. The only reason Democrats and the media could say today that Bush was less divisive is because he was nowhere near as much of a fighter against the Left as Trump is. Let’s not forget that much of Bush’s early presidency was marred with Democrats being bitter about the Supreme Court deciding the election, thinking it was stolen from them. (ring any bells?)
The biggest reason Trump is characterized as divisive is because he actually fights back against the Democrats and the media, who have gotten used to Republicans quaking in their boots and apologizing for breathing.
But in this rhetoric of Trump’s divisiveness, and with pretty much every other rhetoric the media throws out there, it is the media that is largely to blame for the division in our country.
Who can blame people for thinking this way, when you have Don Lemon calling for people (aka Trump and Republicans) to stop demonizing people and in the same breath he demonizes white people and Republicans? When you have Julia Ioffe saying Trump has radicalized more people than ISIS has? When you have people calling Trump “Hitler” and Trump’s supporters “Nazis”? When you have people defending the vandalism and destruction that Antifa causes, calling them “angels”? When you have people defending acts of violence and/or harassment of Republican members of Congress or Trump’s staff?
Who can blame people for believing the media divides people when the media fought tooth and nail to spread lies and slander about a Supreme Court nominee with zero evidence? When the media pins the blame of any shooting anywhere on Trump and Republicans? When the media supports the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia, despite zero evidence ever having turned up? When the media defends one of the most crooked Presidents and presidential nominees we have ever seen in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respectively?
Who can blame people for believing this way when the media calls for others to tone down on the rhetoric, and in the same breath will tone up their OWN rhetoric? When over 90% of the coverage of Trump is negative?
And these are all just examples that come to immediate mind. I’m sure there are countless other examples of the media being divisive that I am forgetting. But it’s because of all of these examples, both the ones I listed and the ones I am certainly forgetting, that the people cannot come to trust what the media tells them.
Now, earlier, I mentioned that I would get to the 56% of people who said Trump was divisive. Again, he’s the President. The position tends to naturally divide people, at least to some extent. But the arguments made against him that he’s divisive ultimately come down to “he’s not apologizing like every other Republican ever”. Sure, that is never said outright, but that is ultimately the Left’s complaint with Trump. He doesn’t apologize for being who he is, for saying what he says and for doing what he’s doing. And it’s part of this defiance of the status quo of Republicans apologizing for daring to take a breath of air that makes Trump as successful and popular as he is.
Of course, that is only part of it, but it is a substantial part. And it’s this success that comes with his attitude that further drives the Left to insanity. Nothing they have tried has worked. No narrative, no rhetoric; no tried and true method of destroying Republicans has even made a dent. If anything, these attacks have had the opposite effect. The attacks were supposed to tear his approval numbers to shreds. He sits at the mid to high-40s, with some having him at 50% approval, which has him higher than Obama was at this point in his own presidency.
Granted, much of that is due to the fact that Trump is actually Making America Great Again, but the constant attacks against Trump are what drive his supporters closer to him.
I have often said that Trump’s election victory, and his subsequent success post-election, have driven the Left to near insanity, if they aren’t already there. They had a thermonuclear reaction to Trump’s victory, the effects of which we are still seeing and will continue to see for a very long time, most likely. This being the case, who can blame people for trying to distance themselves from what is highly radioactive and toxic?
64% of voters said the media is dividing the country. In all honesty, that number should be at 100% or somewhere close to that. Of course, that would be living in a perfect world where people don’t buy into the crap the Left sells and we do not live in such a world. But for this being an imperfect world, I will gladly take 64% of people believing and KNOWING the media is dividing the country.
I just hope that one day, that number will be very, very low, and we can have a news-media world that reports the truth rather than distorts it – that reflects narratives and beliefs, not create them.
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. Unlike the fake news media that will lie to you about pretty much everything, you can rest assured that it is not a lie when I tell you that this is completely free. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Some time ago, I wrote an article talking about how insanely hypocritical it was for Democrats and Leftists to say that they are “doing the Lord’s work” or something to that extent when opposing Trump, or simply being their Leftist selves. Well, that also applies to establishment Republicans who for some reason feel as though they can speak for God now.
In an interview with CNN, John Kasich said the following:
“You know, we have a caravan coming north. We don’t want all those people coming across our border, and there are ways to deal with it. I believe if we could check those who are legitimately in need of asylum, could be vetted before they even get to the border. But you know what? We’re born in America. You know how lucky we are to be born in America and not be born in Guatemala where they would say to your daughter, you know, if you don’t do what we want, we will rape your daughter or we will kill your son if he’s not a drug mule? Now they’re marching north, and you know what? It could easily have been all of us, that we’re in the caravan, that we’re marching north trying to save our families and save our children… If we have been spared… by the grace of God, let us be appreciative, let us count our blessings, and let us reach out to those who have less. And let’s stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight, the trouble, and the problems of others. It is not right. And the Lord doesn’t want it…”
That is a lot to cover, so let’s go little by little. Overall, I both agree and disagree with what he is saying.
People born in the U.S. SHOULD count their blessings for being born in the greatest nation on Earth. And we SHOULD try and help people who need help. In fact, doing so is very much a Christian thing to do.
However, there is a difference between helping people and being forced to take care of them.
Not to mention that the border wall isn’t meant to drive away immigrants. It’s meant to drive away ILLEGAL immigrants.
John Kasich believes that we should “help” these people. The problem comes in the fact that it’s likely dangerous people, like members of MS-13, are part of this caravan. Letting these people in means many, and I mean MANY, dangerous people seeing our compassion and exploiting it, entering the country and hurting Americans.
We should not be helping people if that comes at the expense of America and Americans. And we certainly should not be guilt-tripped into helping people who very well could come in to exploit our system at best and harm Americans at worst.
Besides, let’s not ignore that we do help people, or at least their countries of origin. We give over $120 million to Honduras alone annually (though that number is bound to come down after this). So our government does try and help other countries.
But it shouldn’t fall on us to babysit them. It shouldn’t fall on us to take these people in, particularly in this way, and sacrifice Americans’ livelihoods, jobs, etc. We have to take care of our people first, and that’s not what the Democrats and establishment Republicans seem to want.
We especially should not be made to believe that it is our fault that other countries are poorer than us. Socialism is killing Venezuela. It’s also slowly, but surely killing other countries as well. I’ve mentioned in the past that the only time Argentina was prosperous was when it abandoned socialism at least economically, through deregulation and such.
We are as rich and plentiful as we are because our capitalist system of government and economics are built to help people be prosperous. Key word “help”. It doesn’t guarantee or make it a right that people be prosperous. You have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to given happiness.
But let’s focus a bit more on Kasich bringing God into the mix. He claims that God doesn’t want us to surround ourselves in walls. He’s wrong on this as well. You have to keep in mind what the wall is meant to do. Like I said earlier, it’s not meant to keep immigrants out. It’s meant to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
It’s meant to secure our border and protect our people. It’s a national security issue just as much as an immigration issue. Not to speak for God, but I believe He would want us to be safe. After all, He instructed and led Nehemiah to build a wall too. And Jerusalem currently has a wall that keeps Hamas and other Islamic terrorists out of the promised land (that was promised to the Jews, not Muslims or any other type of Gentile).
Why have those walls? To protect the people inside. That’s what Trump’s border wall is meant to do.
We are a country that welcomes immigrants. Heck, we ARE a nation of immigrants. But the difference between the immigrants that came from Europe and the ones that are marching to our border is that the world was far different, with far different laws and dangers to be met.
Not to mention that the pilgrims set out for America to be free to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution from the Crown.
On the other hand, these illegals are fleeing their crappy countries to enter the country illegally and forcefully, very much like an invading force.
A border wall can stop such an invading force, and there is no honest person who should oppose prioritizing the safety of our people.
I won’t be too harsh on Kasich here because he is not completely wrong with what he’s saying. He’s wrong about the purpose of wanting a wall. He’s certainly wrong about what he thinks Trump’s intentions are with a wall. But he’s not wrong that we should help people.
However, that’s what we’re already doing. Allowing an invading force to enter the country like this will not help those people and certainly will not help us. If we don’t help ourselves, how could we possibly help others?
Regarding the caravan itself, I have already written an article surrounding that topic, so there’s not much else for me to say that would be too different from what I said in that article.
The larger point I wanted to make here is that Kasich is wrong in believing God doesn’t want a border wall. I won’t claim to know what God does or does not want. I cannot fully understand what God wants because I cannot fully understand Him, being one of His creations with a limited mind. However, I do believe He wants us to be safe from the dangers of this world and a border wall would help towards that end.
Not to mention that, in order to help people, they also have to help themselves. The governments of Central America, maybe with some exceptions, are largely central in their power. Meaning that government is everything and they keep expanding it, bringing in more socialism into the mix. We want to help other countries, but those countries also have to do their part in implementing a system where they are not reliant on us for so much.
I’m all for helping others. But that help should not be a one-way street. That help should not be rewarded with being invaded by illegals, likely many of whom look to exploit our system all-the-while trashing it and us, and maybe even harming people by raping young girls and/or killing them.
America and Americans must always come first. I want to help Americans first. Otherwise, how could we help anyone else?
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Boy, oh, boy. Now, these are some news that I am absolutely delighted to hear. The only thing that could honestly top this sort of thing would be Jesus coming back tomorrow.
Recently, Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard University, wrote an incredible article for The Atlantic. In this piece, he focused on a rather large study from Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres and Tim Dixon, titled “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape”.
Like I said, it is a long study with around 160 pages. But Mounk focuses on one thing in particular that is noted within the study: most Americans hate political correctness.
According to Mounk: “Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that ‘political correctness is a problem in our country.’ Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages. Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness – and it turns out race isn’t, either. Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.”
Mounk also mentions that 75% of black people consider political correctness to be a problem in this country, which is 4 points less than white people.
Mounk then asks “if age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does?”
The answer is income and education.
Mounk continues: “While 83 percent of respondents (there were 8,000 total respondents, so quite a large study) who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87% who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.”
Mounk also details political leanings being a better predictor of views on political correctness, which no one should find surprising.
“Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.”
But perhaps my favorite part of Mounk’s article is this: “Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated – and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogenous group in the country.”
Hahahaha! Do you know what that means?! The very people that speak out against white privilege are those who actually ENJOY THE SAME WHITE PRIVILEGE THEY CLAIM TO HATE!
Now, there is obviously a lot to cover here. We’ll go little by little.
If 80% of Americans (of the ones polled, of course) think political correctness is a problem, that is absolutely devastating for the Left. I mean, it’s like a nuclear bomb times 100.
I cannot overstate how terrible this has to be for the Left. As they are, they show themselves to be the hateful, bigoted, close-minded people that they pretended they weren’t until Trump showed up. Political correctness is something the Left has been trying to establish for a while now. And if 80% of the country thinks it’s a problem, that is like a dagger to the Left’s monstrous heart.
It shows that what they want is not what the country wants. It really did not come as a surprise to me that those who were less adamant about political correctness being a problem identified themselves as Left-leaning.
Even still, the fact that 61 percent of liberals think the PC culture is a problem speaks volumes. That is a lot more than I expected. But perhaps this is demonstrative of a Democrat voter base that is beginning to wake up and realize the Democrat Party is not what they thought it used to be. I would say that the Democrat Party is not what they used to be, but I knew they were always like this. They’ve only now begun to show their true colors. They didn’t use to be good, they were just less insane and ready to throw their hatred at the slightest of disagreements.
This is really the main thing to take away from all of this. The Left has been utterly FAILING at programming people to think the way they do. Still, the fact that 30% of “progressive activists” see political correctness as a problem is quite interesting. I would’ve thought that number would be in the extremely low percentile.
I know that Mounk says “only 30 percent” do, and comparatively speaking, that would be the correct terminology, but on its own, that number is surprisingly high.
Apart from the fact that most Americans seemingly reject PC culture, another takeaway from this, which really should not come so much as a surprise, is that those who are less likely to find a problem with political correctness are upper class, well-indoctrinated (I’ve decided to change “well-educated” to “well-indoctrinated” because you no longer receive an education in college) and most ironic of all: they are white.
Again, this tells me that the people who most support political correctness are white people who themselves experience the sort of white privilege they supposedly abhor.
As we all know, the Left’s definition of a person with white privilege is someone who is:
The very people that claim to be against white privilege largely fit the description of someone who enjoys white privilege. It’s delightfully ironic and even more-so hypocritical because these people demand that whites compensate black people and minorities in general, but will never actually do the things they want other white people to do.
Bernie Sanders demands Americans act welcoming towards refugees, yet he would never allow for refugees to take shelter in one of his THREE homes.
George Clooney will bash and attack Americans for not being welcoming towards refugees, but will literally move away from his home if his neighborhood starts getting refugees.
It becomes clear to me that political correctness stems largely from people who feel guilty that they were born white. It’s a strange kind of self-inflicted racism that they brandish, but these people are nutty anyway, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
It’s this fundamental belief in white guilt that creates this culture of political correctness where you’re more worried about the Muslim community getting hate for a radical Islamic terrorist attack than the actual frequency of terrorist attacks.
Not to say that Muslims ought to be blamed for an individual faithfully following Sharia Law, but the bigger issue here is terrorism, not a group of people’s feelings.
I honestly feel sorry for people who support political correctness because they feel white guilt. They are made to believe that just because they were born white, that that somehow means they have an unfair advantage over someone not born white. That being white somehow means they should be guilty for what happened in the past (that was entirely perpetrated by Democrats) and that they somehow have to recompense people of color who themselves never were subject to the things Democrats subjected their predecessors to.
White guilt is something that attacks the soul. Something that makes these people feel guilty for being born of a particular skin color. It’s no different from the Left’s history of blatant racism, where someone being born black automatically makes them inferior in the Left’s eyes.
But it seems that the good news is that most people do not actually suffer from white guilt, or at least most people don’t buy into the idea of political correctness.
Again, that’s the big takeaway from all of this. I just wanted to relish in the fact that it’s wealthy white people who try to shame others for being white and wealthy. Like DiCaprio accusing us of destroying the planet when he’s one of the biggest producers of carbon footprint in the world. Ditto for Al Gore.
“The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes free of charge, without any hidden fees. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. It’s easy and convenient! So check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s not surprising to see the Left and the MSM calling a Republican “worse than Mussolini” or “worse than Bin Laden” or the big one: “worse than Hitler”. Likewise, it came as no surprise to me when I saw that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough essentially said Trump is “worse than the 9/11 terrorists”. But I feel compelled to attack this entire notion in one go, so that’s what I will try to do here.
First, let’s begin with Scarborough’s comment. He wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post that Trump poses a “far graver threat to the idea of America” than the 9/11 terrorists did. He argues this by using something Roger Cohen wrote for the NYT shortly after Trump’s election: “America is an idea. Strip freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law from what the United States represents to the world, and America itself is gutted.”
I’m sorry, just who exactly is stripping freedoms, human rights, democracy and the rule of law from what the U.S. represents in the world? It wouldn’t happen to be the Democrats who persistently try to take away people’s 2nd Amendment rights, right? It wouldn’t happen to be the Leftist tech giants taking away people’s right to free speech, right? It wouldn’t be Google trying to influence the 2016 election by providing free rides for Hispanics in key states to the polls so that they might vote for Hillary, right? It wouldn’t be the Clinton campaign, John McCain, MI6 agents, the FBI and DOJ working together to write a phony dossier to suggest Trump-Russian collusion, right?
When you look at the Left’s actions during, before and after Trump’s election, you will see that, according to Roger Cohen’s own definition, THEY are the ones gutting America! Donald Trump has been cutting regulations imposed on businesses by the Obama administration, securing that businesses have a little more freedom when it comes to how they manage themselves. He has done wonders for the pro-life group, thus ensuring people inside the womb have the human rights the Left adamantly wants to take away. Regarding democracy, I just have to say that we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. In a democracy, there is no electoral college and thus, no balance between states in elections.
And if you want to talk about rule of law, just look at the work ICE and border patrol do. They ENFORCE the law. The law that illegals constantly break and the law that the LEFT wants to eliminate.
Scarborough also insists that America is diminishing its position on the global stage under Trump, signifying that he is more dangerous than the 9/11 attacks were.
Are you kidding me? Which President was it that intended for America to take a back seat in the world by "leading from behind"? Which President allowed for a “JV” squad to retake key positions in the Middle East and become a massive threat to Western Civilization? Which President bowed down to every threat by a foreign entity and made empty threats against Syria and Russia? Which President forced us into a ridiculous Climate Change deal that would see us paying for every cost? Which President made a deal with A TERRORIST SPONSOR NATION to give them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD NUKES? Obama.
Which President has made it his mission to destroy ISIS? Which President has managed to get the little ball of rage in North Korea to agree to denuclearization? Which President has managed to pull out of the aforementioned Climate Change and nuke deals? Trump.
Which President is looking to make fair trade deals with other countries that won’t utterly screw us over?
You see? Trump is doing THE OPPOSITE of what Scarborough says he’s doing or what Roger Cohen is suggesting Trump’s doing. Meaning that either Scarborough is a massive idiot or a massive liar. Not sure which is worse.
Not that I’m surprised, but still.
Comparing Trump to the 9/11 attackers or Hitler or Mussolini or Bin Laden is utterly asinine.
But let’s go down the rabbit hole, shall we?
The September 11 attackers: 1) are dead, 2) are in Hell, 3) were RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS aka the term Obama seems to be allergic to and 4) followed an ideology that seeks to eradicate all opposition, be it through murder or forceful submission and an ideology that seeks to set the world back THOUSANDS of years.
Hitler: 1) is dead, 2) in Hell, 3) was a SELF-ADMITTED SOCIALIST, 4) caused one of the largest massacres of a single group of people the world’s ever seen and 5) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
Mussolini: 1) is dead, 2) in Hell, 3) was a fascist, which, as we know, is AS LEFTIST AS COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM and 4) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
Stalin (yes, I’ve heard comparisons to him as well): 1) is dead (you get the point, I won’t include this more), 2) was a COMMUNIST, 3) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
Bin Laden: (do I even have to say why this is a ludicrous comparison?)
Trump may not be perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than any of these bozos by a mile. What these people have in common is not that they are similar to Trump. Quite the opposite, they are more similar to today’s Democrats.
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all having been Leftists, you can clearly see the comparison. Although regarding Bin Laden, even I won’t try to compare them to him. But not because they are any less evil. It’s just that Bin Laden was not like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Democrats. He was not a ruler of a nation, but rather, of a terrorist organization. He did not seek to rule a country and crush the people with an iron fist, but to spread terror across the world, as well as Sharia Law.
This is why the comparison between Trump and Bin Laden doesn’t even work with the Left’s narrative. Bin Laden was never a world leader. Never a ruler of a country. He was a glorified thug who was absolutely insane and absolutely evil.
But it’s because of that absolute evil that one can more easily compare him with the Left. I’ve said this multiple times, and have recently made it astoundingly clear that the Left is evil.
If any comparisons can be made about anyone, it’s the Left who ought to replace Trump in such conversations. THEY are the ones who support very similar principles and policies. THEY are the ones who, given the chance, would do the same thing to Christians and conservatives as Hitler did to Jews. It might sound a tad extreme, but extremism is the Left’s MO. Just look at today’s world in regards to anything the Left does and I challenge you to find anything less than extremism.
Forcing young girls to endure a grown man using the same restroom? Forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake? Forcing Google employees out of their jobs for stating facts the Left doesn’t agree with? Forcing health organizations to declassify gender dysphoria as a mental disease, but classifying video game addiction as a disorder? Forcing the United States’ Department of Justice to conspire against a political candidate the President at the time and Leftist establishment don’t like in order to affect the results of an election and steal people’s vote?
What part of these things is not extreme?
So I do not apologize for saying that the Left would LOVE to send Christians and conservatives to concentration camps. Given that the Left currently is sending us to Facebook and Twitter jail if we express thoughts that do not align with the Left, I wouldn’t be surprised if they wanted to do worse. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, because I have no doubt, given the chance.
So for Scarborough, or any other Leftist, to try to compare Trump with “bad person x” is completely ridiculous. The Left shares far more in common with the horrible dictators of the past than Trump does.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As I mentioned, it’s 100% free of cost, and I won’t lie to you like the Left does when I say something is free. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as direct access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the midst of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, the U.S. Labor Department released new numbers for unemployment claims.
The Hill reported: “Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell to a seasonally adjusted 203,000 for the week ending Sept. 1, a drop of 10,000 from the previous week, the lowest level since December 1969, the Labor Department said on Thursday.”
“The four-week moving average, which is a better indicator of where the job market is headed, was 209,500, a decrease of 2,750 from the previous week, the lowest level for this average since Dec. 6, 1969 when it was 204,500.”
In other words, unemployment claims currently stand at a 50-year-low. This, combined with the 4.2% GDP growth for the April-June quarter, as well as the fact that there has also been a drop in Americans who have had their hours cut to part-time or simply couldn’t find a job is a strong indicator of a quickly growing economy.
The unemployment rate sits at 3.9%, with Hispanic unemployment sitting at a new record low of 4.5% and black unemployment sitting at 5.9% in May, which is the lowest since 1972.
Of course, there are a number of reasons as to why the MSM would choose against reporting this (of course, with the exception of The Hill). For one, the Kavanaugh hearing has taken the spotlight and is at the center stage of every news organization. This is actually a legitimate reason for not talking about these numbers. However, if the hearing weren’t currently in the spotlight, there isn’t a shadow of a doubt that the MSM would still choose against reporting this.
After all, we’ve been receiving great numbers after great numbers in terms of unemployment rates, GDP growth, consumer confidence and other indicatives of a strong economy. And yet, the Left-wing media only ever talks about the economy nowadays whenever the stock market goes down heavily in the course of a day, even if it shoots right back up the next.
So since these numbers are only helpful for Trump, they choose to ignore them completely, and choose to focus on nothing-burgers like the Russian collusion story, the Stormy Daniels story, (which has since been dropped pretty much completely and replaced with) the Michael Cohen story and just about anything that can even seemingly hurt Trump.
None of it has thus far, but they keep digging through the bottom of the barrel. Never mind that Americans today are openly admitting that they are better off today than at any point during the Obama administration, including black people, blue-collar workers and others. Never mind that America is experiencing a sort of economic revival and boom that the former President of the United States said would never return and we would have to get used to a stagnating America because that was the new “normal”.
I remember having talked about this multiple times, but I will bring it up again. A large majority of Americans (72%) are distrustful of the MSM, according to an Axios poll.
Why do you think that is? Maybe because of things like these? That the MSM focuses on nothing-burgers that are only meant to harm Trump (even if they don’t) than focusing on actual prosperity in this country?
Again, the MSM only talks about the economy when the stock market goes down a good bit in the course of a single day. Whenever it shoots way up, or it bounces back after a down day, they don’t cover it because it goes against their narrative.
But this narrative exposes a key weakness: even if they want to attack Trump on the economy, they can’t because he’s actually doing a fantastic job.
Trust me, if they could, they would rail Trump as much as possible on the economy. But since it’s doing so well and the American people are benefitting so much from the tax cuts, deregulations and other feats that boost the economy, the MSM is relegated to trying to credit Obama for the great economy.
And the funniest part is that they quickly recognize that such a thing does not work out. Oh, sure, people like Joe Scarbarough try every now and again to credit Obama for this economy, but even they are fully aware of how bad of a lie that is.
It’s such an easy argument to refute. If our current economic climate is because of Obama, then why weren’t we seeing it at any point during HIS administration and not AFTER he already left office after 8 YEARS?!
And don’t tell me Obama inherited a mess from Bush. He may have, but he did nothing to fix or rectify it. The only “indication” that Obama’s economy was good was the stock market going back up to the 17,000s by the end of his second term, but even that argument is easily refutable, as the fed didn’t raise interest rates at any point during his administration and companies were buying back their own stocks (which is the opposite of what they are currently doing because we are in an actually good economic climate where people have more money to spend).
Also, if Trump is destroying everything else that Obama was doing, wouldn’t he have an effect on “Obama’s” economy as well? If Obama is to credit for the current economic climate and Trump is as destructive and as bad of a POTUS as the Left claims he is, wouldn’t that have an effect on the economy?
So you see, the argument that Obama is to credit for any of this falls flat even within the fake news media.
Due to stories like that, as well as every other firestorm they want to throw at Trump, who could blame people for distrusting the media? Our country is doing great and the MSM can’t stand it and either ignore it or try to place the credit where credit is not due.
With how they ignore stories like this great economic boom, I’m not surprised they believe a blue wave is coming. When you sleep with dogs who have flees 24/7, you’re bound to pick up some of those flees yourself. They constantly report on things that make Trump look bad and unpopular, so they believe America thinks the same way.
They believe the very b.s. they want to give to you, so they think Trump is toast.
Meanwhile, with stories such as this booming economy and others that make Trump look like he’s keeping the promises he made on the campaign trail, I don’t see any indication of anything even remotely close to a blue wave. If anything, in the natural, these things should result in a RED wave come November.
Whether it happens or not remains to be seen, but that’s what should logically follow. “This party is doing great for our country? Why would we want to kick them out?”
Again, that’s what should logically follow, but Leftists are usually never logical, and unfortunately, there are plenty of them. Otherwise, airheads like Ocasio-Cortez would never get anywhere close to a Congressional seat.
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Even if Trump weren't doing such a great job with the economy and we weren't in the middle of an economic boom right now, you would still be able to afford our 100% FREE newsletter which contains a compilation of the week's articles. So please make sure to check it out for yourself and see what you think.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The biggest stories in the news media for this week have been about Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and, surprisingly, Mollie Tibbetts. However, there was a story that came out before these things that I really should have covered then, but will cover it now because it really is a worthwhile story that I believe can stand the test of time.
That story, of course, is when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo attacked Trump’s MAGA slogan, saying that America “was never that great”. Naturally, he received some backlash, even from the Left, but Campus Reform decided to take it to the streets of New York to ask people if they agree or disagree with the Governor’s statement. Specifically, Campus Reform asked college-aged millennials this question. (video below)
I think you can guess what they collectively thought.
Most of them said things like: “I don’t believe America has been great for all folks, ever, even today”, “I would have to agree with Governor Cuomo.”
When asked if they could point to a time when America was great, they said things like: “Not particularly”, as well as one particularly opined young man who had some harsh words to say: “The idea that there was a once great America is pointing towards this false sense of nationalism… What, it’s talking about white America? Yeah, it’s not great.”
It’s worth pointing out this particular young man is, himself, a white man.
Another young Millennial said something similar: “I think it has been great for straight, white men for a very long time.”
Overall, it is interesting to see the sentiment shared by these kids about how they feel about our country. However, it’s both surprising and not very surprising.
The reason it’s not surprising is because Millennials are not well-educated, even if they get degrees from Ivy League schools. They are indoctrinated into believing America sucks, has always sucked and always will suck unless we turn to socialism. And even then, they might still believe it sucks, since the Left is even attacking and hating America for at one time having allowed for slavery and segregation. That America is not great because we allowed those things in the past (guess which political party fought for those things) despite the fact that we have made true progress when it comes to those things.
So I’m not surprised at all that these young ignoramuses believe America was not great in the past and is not great now. And I shall return to this soon.
I also mentioned that I was surprised that they said this. Why? Because saying America was never great ignores the 8 years of Obama.
Of course, Obama spent 8 years to ensure America was as crappy as it could possibly be, so most of the country was seeing America not being great, which prompted Trump to use the “Make America Great Again” slogan. During Obama’s 8 years, America was not great. But when it comes to these socialist Millennials, you would think they would answer: “Yes, America was great, but only when Obama was POTUS” or something along those lines.
Saying that America was never great, as untrue as that statement is, completely ignores the Obama years in these Leftists’ own minds.
You would think they would bring up Obama in any way, or say that America was only great when Obama was running the show, but no. Not one mention of the communist traitor.
THAT is what has me the most surprised. Now, the video offered by Campus Reform is only 3 minutes long, and they didn’t get to that many people, but it is still surprising that even the few millennials who explained their reasoning apart from just saying “no, America was never great” did not think to mention Obama in the least.
Alas, that is mostly a tangent for this article. While still surprising and noteworthy, it’s not the main point of this article. As promised, I would return to why I wasn’t surprised these kids said America was never great.
Part of the reason these kids think this way, apart from being indoctrinated by academia and the MSM, is that they have all lived fairly privileged lives.
I would doubt any one of them has spent much time living and residing outside the U.S. or any other first-world nation.
The people who most often shout that we are an oppressive system have never experienced actual oppression. The people who most often shout that we are racists have never experienced actual racism. The people who most often proclaim guns kill people are the ones who are most protected by people with guns.
And the people who most often shout that capitalism kills people while socialism brings equality to people have never lived in a socialist country.
It’s no secret that I come from Argentina. It’s also no secret that I am fairly young. But just because I am young does not mean I cannot learn from history. And Argentina’s history is not a pretty one.
While America was being rebuilt and regaining its strength in the 50’s, Argentina experienced a military coup to overthrow their authoritarian president Juan D. Peron. However, this military coup led to a military dictatorship not very dissimilar to Peron’s own dictatorship. This lasted decades, until in 1973, Peron returned to power, only to die the following year, and his wife, who was elected vice president, took power.
The ‘70s were troubling times for Argentina, when they suffered terrorist attacks at the hands of communists, leading to another military coup that imposed martial law and arrested (and most likely executed) an unknown number of suspected communists.
Amidst all of this chaos, the country’s economy, naturally, was horrid, with inflation hitting 900% by 1983, according to a website called infoplease.com.
However, there was one point in Argentina’s history that isn’t all chaos and unrest. That point was the presidency of Carlos Menem, who was elected in 1989 and who was essentially Argentina’s version of Ronald Reagan. He did what no other figure in Argentina’s history thought to do: reduce the size of the government. He deregulated businesses and privatized industries that were owned by the state.
However, in 1998, the economy hit another recession, and in 2001, the country defaulted on $155 billion in foreign debt payments. The largest default in history. Then, in 2002, President Duhalde devalued the Argentine peso, which “had been pegged to the [American] dollar for a decade” according to infoplease.com. This devaluation sent the banking industry plummeting to a crisis and purged the savings of middle-class people, sending millions of Argentinians into poverty.
Like I said, I am young, but I remember very well what my family went through. We had lost just about everything. No, we were never on the streets, and I honestly do not know what my parents did to rebound us out of that financial trouble brought about by the government. But thank the good Lord they figured something out, otherwise, I don’t think I’d be here talking to you right now.
What the people of Argentina had been going through – THAT was oppression. What the people of Venezuela are currently going through – THAT is oppression.
What these college-aged millennial kids are going through is the world’s longest temper tantrum.
This is a country that knows how to do things the right way. The founders of this country built a near perfect system that is so hard to corrupt, it’s taken the Democrats centuries to get to this point. And even then, they haven’t completely won, if Trump’s election is any indication to their limited power.
The leaders of this country (at least most of them) fully understood that the government doesn’t rule the people, the people rule the government. The government works for us, not the other way around.
What happens when the people rule the government is what you see during Trump’s and Reagan’s and many other President’s administration: a nation that quickly grows into a superpower to be reckoned with.
What happens when the government rules the people is what you see in Venezuela, Argentina, China, North Korea, Russia, etc.
THOSE countries see oppression. THOSE countries are not great. THOSE countries can only be great if they employ capitalistic policies, not socialistic ones.
In all of Argentina’s history, the only period of economic stability, growth and PROSPERITY was during Menem’s administration, when he employed capitalistic policies of deregulation, denationalization of industries and reducing the size and scope of the government. Apart from that, Argentina has only seen economic instability, civil unrest, riots, violence, terrorism and military coups.
I don’t care if these kids spend an entire week non-stop telling me why America isn’t great and has never been great. I know for a darn FACT that America has always been the golden standard for exceptionalism in the world. America has always been better than other countries.
Yes, it’s had its dark past with slavery and segregation, but if you want to talk about that, talk about how it was the Democrat South that segregated for their “right” to own another person. Talk about how Democrats in the North opposed Lincoln and Republicans in the South supported him. Talk about how House Democrats tried to kill the 13th Amendment bill in 1864, but Lincoln’s reelection in 1864 and significant Republican control of Congress passed it in 1865, when the bill passed 119-56, with several Democrats abstaining.
Talk about how Republicans were unified in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while the Democrats were far more divided on it.
If you want to bring up the sins of the past, I will ensure you know they’re not America’s sins, they’re DEMOCRATS’ SINS!
America is known as the greatest nation on Earth for good reason. All other countries who do not employ capitalism and have an over-grown government ruling people’s lives absolutely suck.
The truth is: America is a blessing. America has always been great. It’s the Democrats who have never been great.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
For the most part, I’ve chosen to steer clear off the topic of tariffs and a trade war. However, as I would read story after story relating to a trade war with China, one thing kept coming up in my mind: China would be obliterated by a trade war.
Even if the stories I would read would suggest the exact opposite, that the U.S. should not engage in a trade war with the Chi-coms, my instinct would always tell me that China had really no hopes of winning a trade war with us, especially if our economy is booming, which it is.
I will return to why exactly I suspected China would lose a trade war momentarily. For now, I wish to share a story with you published on Breitbart News titled: “Tectonic Shift in China: Xi Under Fire as China Realizes it Underestimated U.S. Trade Resolve.”
“Chinese President Xi Jinping is facing backlash from within the Communist Party over his hardline stance in the trade dispute with the United States, Reuters reported Thursday,” according to Breitbart.
Reuters reported that: “A growing trade war with the United States is causing rifts within China’s Communist Party, with some critics saying that an overly nationalistic Chinese stance may have hardened the U.S. position, according to four sources close to the government.”
“President Xi Jinping still has a firm grip on power, but an unusual surge of criticism about economic policy and how the government has handled the trade war has revealed rare cracks in the ruling Communist Party…”
“There is a growing feeling within the Chinese government that the outlook for China has ‘become grim’, according to a government policy advisor, following the deterioration in relations between China and the United States over trade. The advisor requested anonymity.”
I’m not surprised at all that the advisor requested anonymity. If the Chinese government found out who was saying these things about China and the government, they would imprison that person and possibly even execute them. There is no freedom of speech there. The only things you can say are things favorable to the government.
Regardless, let’s continue with the Reuters report: “Those feelings are also shared by other influential voices. ‘Many economists and intellectuals are upset about China’s trade war policies,’ an academic at a Chinese policy think tank told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. ‘The overarching view is that China’s current stance has been too hard-line and the leadership has clearly misjudged the situation.”
The significance of this report cannot be understated. If this is, indeed, the case, then this is massive news! The Chinese communists don’t tend to be split about things like this. They are usually fairly unified. So for these anonymous sources to be saying these things about the Chinese Communist Party, that’s a big deal.
Even an article from the South China Morning Post suggests that China should concede defeat to Trump in this trade war. To quote Xu Yimiao, the writer of the article: “Beijing’s strategy of a tit-for-tat retaliation over tariffs has clearly failed. In fact, this strategy escalated the conflict…”
But how can this be? I thought China was supposed to kick our butts in a trade war. That’s what the Left and the fake news media were saying, after all.
Well, it’s really no surprise that the Left would say that we would lose a trade war with China. The Left sees China as a utopia. As such, they believe China’s centralized economy is superior to a capitalist market economy. Even U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) claimed last month that China held an advantage over the U.S. in a trade war, and engaging further in this trade war would be “stupid”.
According to Breitbart, “Views such as Schatz’s were common during the Cold War, when many prominent economists and political scientists argued that the Soviet Union’s totalitarian society could prevail over the U.S. Earlier in the last century, some had made similar arguments based on the perceived strength of Nazi Germany compared to the U.S.”
Which brings me to the reason I suspected China would lose a trade war. What do China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have in common? They would use socialistic policies to run every aspect of the government and people’s lives, including the economy. And what happened to two of those nations? They are no longer around… well, not as they used to be.
The reason I suspected China would lose a trade war is because capitalism always defeats communism in economics. Communism would be considered an economic joke if it weren’t so dangerous.
You see, there’s a very clear difference between capitalism and communism/socialism. I’ve even said this before in the past: capitalism creates wealth; communism destroys it.
Capitalism is the enterprise of building more and more wealth through freedom. Communism is the enterprise of spreading wealth around so much that it’s too thinly spread, and the enterprise of making it incredibly difficult to accumulate any sort of wealth. It’s the enterprise of spending other people’s money until there is no more money to be spent.
Under capitalism, wealth belongs to the people. Under communism, the people belong to the government.
I have often talked about China and how they are ranked #2 in world GDP (#3 if you count the E.U.). But you really have to think about why they are in that place.
Well, it’s most likely a combination of having the world’s biggest population (1.379 billion since 2016), so there’s a lot of people to give money to the government, as well as exploitation of what makes the GDP grow. For example, government spending grows the GDP. Part of the reason Obama’s GDP managed to grow around 2% is because he would spend a lot of money and drive our debt sky-high. But while the GDP was “growing”, the economy was stagnating, with high unemployment levels, more people going into welfare, etc.
China is doing much the same thing. They build luxurious ghost cities that no one can afford to move into and use so that the GDP artificially grows to an extent.
Now, I won’t claim to know the intricacies of Chines economics. I doubt vast amounts of spending and having the world’s largest population are the sole reasons for that GDP ranking, but they are significant parts of it. (The other part might be that they use relatively capitalistic economic policies to avoid completely crashing the economy and sinking the country).
What I’m getting at is that no communist country can withstand any sort of economic war with a capitalistic country, by definition. Engaging in trade wars with the U.S. will only accelerate China’s ultimate demise at the hands of their own communistic system.
And this becomes even more true if the U.S. is going through an economic boom, which it is. This, I believe, is part of the reason Trump is imposing and enforcing tariffs on foreign countries. Another part of it is the fact that other countries have been taking advantage of the U.S. because the Establishment believes the U.S. became powerful and wealthy because it somehow stole from other nations and felt that foreign governments taking advantage of us was a form of justice. Trump was having none of that nonsense and decided to embark on making fair trade deals by using the same tactics as the other nations.
But this really would not be suggested for Trump to do if the economy weren’t booming. With a booming economy, we can afford to engage in trade wars to make better trade deals in the future.
A booming U.S. economy combined with the simple fact of life that communism sucks at trade wars, and you can see why I always believed China would be destroyed in a trade war.
And seemingly, people within the Chinese Communist Party are beginning to realize this.
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The answer to that question is the exact same answer for the question “what’s so wrong about being a black female?”, which is: absolutely nothing. And yet, the Left is always the one to bring up race and gender in every issue. They always have problems with someone’s skin color.
Earlier this week, President Trump announced the nomination for Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement for the Supreme Court. Trump chose D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a solidly conservative judge who would most likely have a hand in overturning Roe v. Wade if the case is brought up again to the Supreme Court. He just so happens to be a white man. GASP! The horror! How can President Donald Trump select someone who is a member of the majority race in this country?! How could he select yet another white man?!
The thing is that, regardless of who he chose, the Left would have utterly trashed that person, if the Women’s March statement opposing the nomination of judge “XX” is anything to go by. Had it been Barrett (my personal favorite), Trump would’ve been attacked for trying to play the “woman” card and she would’ve been attacked for “betraying women” for being pro-life.
So, with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, the Left is attacking him for everything (even saying he will kill millions of people), including for his race and gender. If you’re still wondering if the Left is racist and sexist, there’s your answer.
Supposed comedian Stephen Colbert joked about this whole thing, saying that Kavanaugh fills Trump’s BINGO card for nomination. He literally pulled out a BINGO card that only had “white guy” squares.
Fellow butcher of comedy Jimmy Kimmel joked: “[Trump] narrowed his candidates down to three but, in the end, Brett Kavanaugh was the white guy for the job.”
And it’s not just washed-up comedians who are taking a jab at Kavanaugh’s race. The New York Daily News attacked not only Kavanaugh’s race and gender, but the race and gender of those who support and praise him. “After President Trump picked a man who many believe will be the deciding vote on reversing Roe v. Wade, the White House released a list of praise from 34 members of Congress – all of whom are white men.”
I’ve used this argument before, but I believe it to be effective and relevant, so I will use it again here. Replace the word “white” with the word “black” or “Hispanic” and the word “man” with the word “woman” and you can’t help but notice the racism on display.
To better picture it, I’ll rewrite some of the aforementioned statements and “jokes”.
Picture Stephen Colbert pulling out a BINGO book that only had “black chick” on it. Picture Colbert bashing Trump for choosing a black woman for Supreme Court based only on the fact that the nominee is black and female.
Or how about what Kimmel said? “He narrowed his candidates down to three but, in the end, [Judge XX] was the black woman for the job.” I get he’s using a pun, so this doesn’t have the same effect, but picture Kimmel also attacking the nominee’s race and gender.
Or the NY Daily News: “The White House released a list of praise from 34 members of Congress… all of whom are black women.”
So, again, I ask: what is so wrong with being white and a man? And don’t tell me I’m being a white supremacist sympathizer for defending white men or white people in general. Were people who defended black people before the 60s called “black supremacist sympathizers”? No. And considering it’s white people being attacked for absolutely no reason, of course I’m going to defend them. Same way I would defend black people being attacked for absolutely no reason. Same goes for Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Muslims, gay people, transgenders, liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, etc.
It’s not right to attack people for no reason. But the most important thing is recognizing just who are the ones attacking people: those who consider themselves “tolerant” and “loving” and “caring”.
The truth is they only tolerate you if you agree with them. The Democrat Party’s slogan for 2018 and 2020 should honestly be: “Join us in tolerating and loving people who are different or die.” Considering their constant (and sometimes violent) attacks against Christians, conservatives and Trump supporters, I’d say that slogan fits them perfectly.
They don’t tolerate others. They HATE others. Anyone who is different, who thinks differently from them, cannot be tolerated. Their speech must be eliminated and censored. And when they set their sights on a particular group of people, they don’t let up.
Historically, the biggest reason the KKK was formed was not simply to attack and kill black people. It was formed to attack and kill Republicans. When Lincoln freed the slaves, black people had no real reason to vote Democrat, considering they were the ones who fought for their “right” to keep them slaves. So, the KKK formed to attack and kill Republicans and black people were usually Republicans.
Today, while not always necessarily the case, white people are sometimes associated with the Republican Party. And unless they denounce the GOP, like the black people who began voting Democrat to keep themselves out of trouble, those white people will be attacked and/or harassed.
Everything the Left does, historically, is fueled by hatred. They hated black people who would vote Republican (don’t misunderstand, they still do). They hate white people who vote Republican, calling them racists. They hate Hispanics who vote Republican, believing them to be abandoning their “brethren” at the border.
Make no mistake, I do not consider a single person who breaks the law to enter the country a “brother” or “sister”. And it also speaks to the Left’s racism to assume all Hispanics disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration.
It speaks to their racism for them to assume all black people are Democrats. Even more so to assume they MUST vote Democrat.
The truth is that the Left does not tolerate white people who do not denounce their “whiteness” or the GOP. That is why they excuse their prominent Democrats who are white such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren (go ahead and tell me she’s Native American, I could use a laugh), etc. They are excused of their “whiteness” because they support the Leftist agenda. Same reason they excuse Al Gore’s and DiCaprio’s massive carbon footprints. They support the Leftist agenda as well.
Now, in all of this, you really have to ask why they would attack white people. It’s not like they have to fill some quota of being racist towards a group of people every other century. Well, the reason they attack white people is because they see it as an opportunity. An opportunity to garner more votes. You see, despite the Left having been the ones to most strongly support slavery and segregation, they’ve managed to distort history, in their takeover of the education system, to make it seem like it’s not the Left’s fault, but rather, white people in general. And more specifically, America’s fault.
Their arguments and attacks against black people were that they were inferior to the white man. Their arguments and attacks against white people are that their ancestors thought themselves superior to the black man. You see their tricks? It’s them who attacked black people but make it seem as though it was generally white people (and even Republicans) who made those attacks.
And so, they attack white people today for the atrocities of DEMOCRATS’ past. This is deception at its finest. They are making racism seem acceptable again. For what reason? To create more issues of race so they can continue getting elected. If you lived in the Left’s mind, you would believe America is as racist today as it was in the time before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and before the Emancipation Proclamation.
Race relations in the U.S. can’t be allowed to improve. For Democrats to be elected, people must be divided. They must be divided in terms of race, gender, class, etc. Black people must blame white people for things Democrats committed. Women must believe men are holding them back. The proletariat must believe the bourgeoisie are taking advantage of them.
This is how the Left wins. But the thing is that facts do not support this. White people do not treat black people the same today as in the past. Men don’t have more rights than women do. The working class isn’t being taken advantage of by the rich class.
But this doesn’t matter to the Left. In fact, these things are nothing but a bother to them. They MUST create division. They MUST attack white people to make it seem as though the Democrats have always been on the side of black people.
It’s nothing but a farce.
Regardless, it’s always necessary to point out the Left’s history of racism that continues to this day. They simply can’t help but be racist. It’s in their genes.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...