Earlier this week, a video surfaced online depicting CNN anchor Chris Cuomo yelling at a man for having called him “Fredo”, in reference to the dumb Corleone brother in the first two movies of The Godfather.
The video is nearly 2 minutes long, but it begins with the man telling Cuomo “I thought that’s who you were,” insisting that he really thought Chris’s name was actually “Fredo”. Cuomo replied by saying: “No, punk-a** b****es from the Right call me Fredo. My name is Chris Cuomo. I’m an anchor on CNN.”
He continued: “Fredo is from ‘The Godfather’, he was that weak brother and they’re using it as an Italian aspersion… It’s like the ‘n-word’ for us.’”
The man then sarcastically told Cuomo: “You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television.” Cuomo later responded by saying: “You’re going to have a f***ing problem.” This prompted the man to taunt Cuomo: “What are you going to do about it?”
It is at this point that Cuomo lost even more of his marbles: “I’ll f***ing ruin your s**t. I’ll f***ing throw you down these stairs like a f***ing punk.” This prompted the argument to get a little heated, but other people in the area separated the two and prevented the situation from getting worse.
Now, there is a lot to say about this situation as a whole and what Cuomo said in the video.
First, let’s begin with what Cuomo specifically said. First of all, “Fredo” is not like the n-word for us Italians (yes, I’m Italian). To say that the name “Fredo” is like the n-word is ridiculous at best and insulting to black people at worst. There is no racial connotation to the name, but there is plenty of it for the n-word. The name may be meant as an insult, but it’s not a racial one. It’s in reference to the dumber brother in The Godfather, which even Cuomo admits to knowing prior to saying such nonsense.
Second, as much as I have seen people on both sides of the aisle defend Cuomo (and I’ll get to that), there’s no denying that the guy literally threatened violence against the man who called him “Fredo”. It’s entirely likely that the guy was heckling Cuomo and trying to get him worked up, given that there is video that was most likely shot from the guy’s cell phone in order to record the conversation, with the camera facing both men, but as Chris himself admitted the following day, he “should be better than the guys baiting me.” He definitely could have reacted better to the situation instead of getting in the guy’s face about it.
Whether or not you think the guy was sincere about him thinking Chris’ name was “Fredo” (doubtful, considering how often his name is shown on t.v. and social media) or he was really just heckling the guy, Cuomo took the bait and escalated things himself. He could’ve walked away, which would’ve been the smarter and more mature thing to do, but he let himself get dragged down to the other guy’s level. Certainly, threatening violence against the guy, even if he didn’t have any intention on doing anything, is not right.
And that’s what people on both sides of the aisle are missing: Cuomo THREATENED the guy with violence. CNN and the Left insist Cuomo was the victim of racism. He wasn’t and it’s, again, ridiculous at best and insulting at worst to claim he is the victim of racism. People like Jesse Kelly and Matt Walsh make the rational defense that people shouldn’t accost other people in public, particularly celebrities or pseudo-celebrities like Cuomo. Fair enough, and I agree, but again, half of the incident falls on Cuomo’s response to the accosting.
If the argument for Cuomo is that he was just standing up for himself, even then, there are better ways of doing it without 1) pretending you’re the victim of racism and 2) threatening violence. You can demand respect without asserting that you are willing to be violent.
And for those who might try and make some sort of argument about “Fredo” actually being a racial slur when directed at Italians, consider that multiple people in CNN have attacked others and called them “Fredo”. CNN’s Ana Navarro called Don Jr. “Fredo” live on Cuomo’s show, right in front of Cuomo, and he didn’t react in any way about it. If that name is a racial slur in any way, you would think he would’ve had some sort of problem with it being said on his show. Devin Nunes was also referred to as “Fredo” by CNN back in March by Rick Wilson and Don Jr. was also called “Fredo” by CNN’s David Gregory. Not once was there flak about it being a racial term. And all of a sudden, it’s racist to call someone “Fredo”? Give me a break.
And as far as the threat of violence goes, the Left and some people on the Right might try and ignore that, but it’s right there on video. Defend it as Cuomo “standing up for himself” all you want, but there are better ways to go about that whole situation. Even just threatening violence could give Cuomo some legal troubles, particularly as it was recorded and posted online, so being this quick to anger is never the right approach to take, regardless of whether or not he actually had done something to the guy. Even in the recording, Cuomo admits that throwing the guy down the stairs would lead to him getting sued, so he knows he shouldn’t actually do that, but the threat itself could put him in jeopardy.
Looking at the whole situation as objectively as I can, here is my final analysis:
1) The unnamed guy was most likely heckling Cuomo and trying to provoke him. Given how the video was shot, with the phone down but the camera facing up, that’s likely the case. He might have been trying to get a picture of Cuomo and himself, selfie style, so that can explain the way the camera was facing, but not the actual recording of video. That’s a different thing entirely. The guy also didn’t do much to try and deescalate the situation. At one point, he said: “What are you going to do about it?” That’s a pretty obvious tell that he was trying to provoke Cuomo into doing *something*. If he actually thought Chris’ name was “Fredo”, you would think he would’ve apologized about the mistake and tried to deescalate the situation. He didn’t do that, so some of the blame definitely falls on the guy, as far as one can tell.
2) Cuomo reacted extremely poorly, was quick to anger, carelessly claimed the name was a racial insult against Italians when it most definitely is not and carelessly threatened violence against the guy, even if he knew actually doing anything would put him in great legal jeopardy. All for being called “Fredo”, which isn’t even an actual insult. This is the same guy who often draws comparisons (which are nonexistent) between Trump and Hitler. The same guy who attacked a Catholic kid for awkwardly grinning at a Native American protester who went up to the kid’s face to accost him. The same guy who completely supports ANTIFA and what they do. Cuomo can dish it out, but the minute he even perceives to be insulted in some manner, he blows his lid and threatens violence? And this was in front of his family too.
In an objective manner, Cuomo isn’t entirely to blame for the situation, though he does bear much of it through his reaction alone. Had he gone about it differently, the situation wouldn’t have escalated like it did, or at least it would not have been his fault for the situation escalating. He did himself no favors by acting the way he did, even if he was “standing up for himself”. What he did was verbally attack a guy who, yes, was heckling him and provoking him a little, but it started because of the name “Fredo” being thrown at him. Nothing more than that.
While Cuomo may not have initiated the conflict here, he certainly did nothing to make the situation better. And considering how often he uses hateful language against other people, or allows hateful language against others on his own show, and considering he escalated things over being called a NAME, he doesn’t get sympathy from me. The Left and the MSM have applauded the heckling and driving away of conservatives from public spaces, so forgive me if my sympathy well is a bit dry.
“Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”
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.
Earlier this week, NRATV shared a minute-long video of Kim Corban, a woman who had been raped in her college dorm at the age of 20 and had since gotten a gun to protect herself and her family.
In the clip, she mentions her horrible rape, what she was thinking while it was happening, and states that “I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.”
The woman in the clip gives a very legitimate and fair reason to own a firearm and anyone who watched the clip could understand. However, in comes CNN host Chris Cuomo, replying with a simple: “Only in America” tweet.
Usually, that phrase “only in America” carries with it a sort of negative or mocking connotation. So the fact he tweeted that in response to a video of a woman who survived a rape and decided to get a firearm (Cuomo himself owns a gun, btw) and didn’t offer any further explanation for quite a few hours led some people to mock him.
Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the NRA, replied to Cuomo by saying: “Not sure what you mean by this. ‘Only in America’ can a rape survivor protect herself and her family against any future threat? This is bad how?”
Steven Crowder, host of the show Louder with Crowder, mocked: “Man mocks rape survivor who protects her children with firearm… Only on CNN.”
Steve Krakauer replied: “Only in America can a woman be raped and held captive for hours, tell her story, and subsequently be snark-tweeted by a CNN anchor so blinded by his own political agenda he can’t display basic humanity.”
Jarrett Stepman replied: “Yes, in America we preserve the right for women (in this case a rape survivor) to defend themselves and their families. God bless America.”
These are but a few of the kind of replies Cuomo received for his mocking tweet. And after a few hours, he had had enough and attempted to explain. Key word here is “attempted” because he failed gloriously at that too.
He first replied to a woman named Janice Dean, who tweeted at him the following: “You might want [to] explain this tweet a little better to those of us who’ve actually had to face predators in our own homes and defend ourselves without a big strong man like yourself?”
Cuomo replied with: “1/2 You are right. No offense intended. Too short on twitter. ‘Only in America’ are we still debating the legitimate right to protect oneself like you and many others vs sensible way to keep guns from wrong people. Only here can we not address the issues around school shootings.”
Yeah, not a good explanation at all there. It looks more like he’s trying to change the topic of conversation to school shootings and keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. Problem here is that the video does not address that and he acts as though it’s self-evident with his “Only in America” tweet.
He then replied to Janice with: “I am sorry for confusion. I take the issue and the stories of violence seriously. Muscles don’t stop bullets, as you know. Again, I have always been clear about the right to own and what needs to be improved. Apologize if you were misled.”
He still doesn’t acknowledge that his original tweet made absolutely no sense given the video and offers no real good explanation for the original tweet.
Then, when Janice replied with: “That’s a lot of explaining. Honestly I think you just need to apologize to Kimberly Corban. That would be a good start,” Cuomo got defensive: “Of course I apologized for this negative attention that was not intended. You asked a question and I answered. That’s what should happen. This place and sadly this issue brings out the worst in too many. No need. Not helpful.”
Oh, of course people asking for an explanation and asking that someone apologize to the person being targeted is out of line. How dare they question the great Chris Cuomo when he offered a shoddy explanation that changed the topic and offered an apology not to the woman he mocked but for not being more clear with his three-word tweet?
Basically, Wednesday night was a bad night for Cuomo, trying to explain things away (and failing miserably), trying to shift the subject and getting defensive over it. But despite what a lot of people were saying, I think the biggest problem here is simply that Cuomo did not watch the video he commented on… which is a pretty bad thing considering he’s supposed to be a “journalist” and it’s his job to look into this sort of thing.
I think what happened is that he saw the video was from the NRA TV Twitter account, saw that it was captioned: “’I’m a mother of two, and if a predator or anyone else tries to harm me or my family, they have to come through my firearm first.’ – Kim Corban,” ignored the part about a predator or someone harming her or her family, focused on the part about “having to come through my firearm first,” which could be considered a threat (a good one, all things considered) and his mind went into auto-pilot and offered criticism towards the NRA and the woman.
Had he watched the MINUTE-long video, he would’ve likely not commented like that (or at all) and avoided making an utter fool of himself.
Sadly, given the current state of not just CNN but the entirety of the MSM, where things are reported on without the facts or before they come in (i.e. Covington Catholic, some e-mails that supposedly proved collusion but they got the dates wrong, really the entirety of the Russian collusion narrative, and most recently, a story about the USS John McCain’s name being covered up before Trump’s trip to Japan but was reported as having been covered up during it, etc.), this sort of anti-journalistic work is par for the course. There is good reason I largely don’t call them journalists anymore. They are propagandists and use the guise of journalism to pretend objectivity in their highly subjective reporting.
Chris Cuomo likely didn’t watch the clip (I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. If he did watch the clip, this makes it all the worse), made assumptions based on the source and what was captioned (even then, he had to have ignored the part about harm coming to her) and offered a rather vague, mocking criticism that has led (unsurprisingly) to people thinking he was mocking a rape survivor (which he was, but I don’t think he intended to do that).
Given his title as “journalist”, one would expect him to watch the video before saying anything about it. But this is the state of the media: facts be damned; if a story hurts Trumps/the Right, roll with it. And if the NRA has someone saying someone will “have to come through my firearm first”, mock that to oblivion without first checking to see who is giving that sort of threat and why. No investigative journalism, or even watching the video easily offered, is necessary. Just type away, criticize and be on your merry way.
This encapsulates the state of the media. They are not trying to report on reality but rather shape it. Facts will only get in the way of their reporting if the facts don’t agree with their narrative.
“A bunch of high school kids wearing MAGA hats are pictured, with one of them smiling at a Native American who is right in his face? Obviously it’s the MAGA kid’s fault and he’s a racist and white supremacist and clearly hassling the Native American! And it’s all Trump’s fault!”
“You’re telling me the Native American guy was accosting the high school kids and the kid at the center of the picture was simply smiling out of awkwardness of the situation, not knowing how to react to such a strange situation? You’re saying the kids were on a school trip, happened upon a group of racist black supremacists yelling obscenities at the white kids (and even the black kids of the group) and the Native American guy escalated the situation? And the Native American guy has a history of this sort of thing? Nonsense, put him on an interview where he will act like the victim. You mean to say he has done that in the past too? Bury the story and never admit fault. It’s still because of Trump that this even happened in the first place. There were no racial problems in America when Democrats were President.”
“We have a Congressman who claims he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia? Have him speak about it but don’t ask him to show the evidence at all. Just affirm our petty beliefs that Trump did collude with Russia and Saint Mueller is coming down from heaven to rescue our poor souls.”
And this is when they are not actively colluding with the FBI to report on a dossier even the FBI admits is not verified.
A CNN anchor opined on a topic he did not care to even slightly research. Only on planet Earth.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
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.
If you know me, you know I do not tend to insult people. I always argue Leftists’ dumb arguments but never really call those people dumb. I call them out for what they are, but typically without insulting them. And if I insult them, it’s typically a part of a joke, to some extent.
As for Don Lemon, I will not insult him, since that’s beneath me. However, this needs to be made completely clear: he is, without a shadow of a doubt, a disgustingly hypocritical slimeball.
Recently, Don Lemon said some things that will leave anyone to cringe in utter disgust with the man.
First, on a CNN panel on Monday, he argued that he doesn’t see Democrats killing people because of political motivations. That the mail-bomber and the Tree of Life shooter were both right-wingers and that that is to blame for the violence.
When the issue of the shooter who tried to kill Republicans came up, he argued that there is no equivalency there. No comparison. Of course, that being bullcrap, Lemon does not explain why it’s different.
Second, talking with Chris Cuomo, Lemon said “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them… There is no white guy ban.”
In the same sentence, in the same breath, Lemon urges people not to demonize others, all-the-while demonizing white people and Republicans. It’s truly sickening what goes on in this guy’s mind and what comes out of his mouth. So allow me to slowly, but surely dismantle this guy’s arguments and properly call him out for exactly what he is.
Let’s begin with the argument that he doesn’t see Democrats killing people and that the socialist shooter is different from the synagogue shooter and mail-bomber.
First of all, even this hypocrite can’t tell me the socialist shooter wasn’t trying to kill people. The socialist shooter didn’t bring his AR-15 to the baseball field and start shooting Republicans because he wanted to have a civil conversation about healthcare. He went there because Bernie Sanders said prior to the shooting that Republicans were going to kill millions of people by getting rid of healthcare or changing it in the least.
The socialist shooter was reportedly shouting “this is for healthcare!” while he was shooting. Miraculously, that nut-job didn’t kill anyone. But he definitely tried to, given he was FIRING AT OTHER PEOPLE!
Second of all, the mail-bomber already had a history of violence, and even sending bombs in the mail in the past. Not to mention that the bombs were inoperable. They didn’t blow up and were not designed to. If Lemon can’t see Democrats killing people because the socialist shooter didn’t actually kill anyone, then by that logic, we can’t see the mail bomber killing anyone because he didn’t. Lemon’s argument here is largely based on the fortunate technicality that the socialist shooter didn’t manage to kill anyone. But let’s not forget that he was definitely trying to and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital.
Third of all, the Tree of Life shooter was not a right-winger. He was an ardent anti-Trumper who hated the fact that Trump was so pro-Jew and pro-Israel. That line of thinking falls more in line with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Al Sharpton, etc., who are all Leftists.
Beyond the socialist shooter, there are countless other stories of Leftists threatening the lives of anyone they disagree with and committing acts of violence. I’ve already written about that sort of thing TWICE, listing the rap sheet from Breitbart about the number of Leftist and media-incited/ignored/acceptable acts of violence against the Right.
I don’ trust that any of them wouldn’t go as far as to kill someone they disagree with should they have the chance to. That’s one of the reasons we have the second amendment and why we carry guns, just in case someone threatens and fully intends to take our lives.
If they are willing to actually terrorize people they disagree with, the next step is to actually kill them. The only political groups that have shown this tendency and attitude are Leftist political groups like Black Lives Matter, some of whom HAVE gone as far as to kill cops, and Antifa, who are one successful killing away from being labeled a terrorist organization the likes of ISIS, Hamas, etc.
Finally, let’s not forget that a Democrat HAS ACTUALLY KILLED a Republican in the past. Need I remind you that John Wilkes Booth successfully assassinated Republican President Abraham Lincoln? Booth was from the Democrat South, which hated that Lincoln was fighting them over their supposed “right” to own a human being.
So if Lemon can’t see a Democrat killing anyone for political reasons, he is completely ignorant of history. Not something that surprises me, but something that must be pointed out here.
Now, let’s move on to the racially-charged comment that honestly makes me, a Latino man, sick to my stomach.
The hypocrisy of that comment leaves me in utter shock. Not because I didn’t expect it – I certainly did - but because within the same breath, he calls on people to stop demonizing others and proceeds to demonize others.
What he means by that statement is that Trump and Republicans need to stop demonizing the media and the Left and just take that same demonization themselves. The media definitely doesn’t need to stop demonizing Republicans. Democrats definitely don’t need to stop demonizing Republicans. The Left doesn’t need to tone down on the inflammatory rhetoric, but Trump and Republicans do. Matter of fact, slimeballs like Lemon will flat out deny that their rhetoric is in any way inflammatory.
I don’t really know what else to say. Lemon’s comment speaks for itself. Aside from being hugely hypocritical, it is disgustingly racist. Saying that white people are a terror threat? How is this guy allowed on television? Trying to bring up the supposed “Muslim” ban (which doesn’t ban Muslims, just people from a list of Islamic-terror-related countries, and they know that, but they don’t care) and suggesting that maybe there should be a “white guy” ban?
Do you see now why I call him a hypocritical slimeball? His rhetoric is more inflammatory than he could claim Trump’s is, his arguments are illogical and flat out racist, and he, as well as the entirety of CNN, all believe what he is saying is acceptable and even right and correct.
And this comes in the same week that Far-Left writer Julia Ioffe said, on CNN, that Trump has “radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.”
She later “apologized” by saying she was “exaggerating”. But that, of course, leads us to believe she fully believes Trump has and is radicalizing people much in the same way ISIS does.
These two are not the only ones at CNN (or the broader Fake News media, for that matter) who have claimed Trump is to blame for the actions of the mail-bomber and synagogue shooter and is to blame for the current political climate.
But in doing all of this, apart from dodging the truth about those two nut-jobs (mail-bomber having a criminal history and the shooter being anti-Trump), they use the same inflammatory rhetoric they claim Trump is using, but even more so.
These people are unapologetic about their rhetoric. If they were, they wouldn’t be using it. For all their claims that Trump is dividing the nation, in reality, it is them who are doing that.
Trump, after the Tree of Life shooting, decided to go to Pittsburgh. The Left’s response? Attacking him, saying he shouldn’t be there. Trump, after the mail-bombing suspect was caught, gave a strong speech condemning his actions. The Left’s response? Trump is not being sincere.
While Trump’s use of “enemy of the people” to describe the FAKE news media (I capitalize the word fake because people tend to omit that part) might be inflammatory, it is nonetheless true. The fake news media constantly lies about everything, but that is the least of their sins that label them as the “enemy of the people”. Apart from straight up lying to people, they constantly label those they disagree with as racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. They label others as Nazis and fascists. They call Trump Hitler and a WaPo article even said he’s worse than Hitler.
In this labeling, they label everyone who supports Trump as a Nazi. Everyone who even slightly disagrees with them on anything as a Nazi. And Lemon, right here, is labeling those he disagrees with (and white people in general) as terror threats.
These people are filled to the brim with hatred. They hate Trump for everything he does and manages to do. They hate us for having ever defied their narcissistic behinds and choosing to support him. And in this hatred, they excuse actual threats and acts of violence against conservatives and right-wingers, all-the-while insisting it is us who are the real threat to democracy, to America, to people.
As human beings, I don’t consider the fake news media to be my enemy. As a Christian, I don’t do that. But as a political commentator, someone who wants what is best for the country, I consider them the enemy of the state.
Everything they want works towards the systemic dismantling of America as founded. That’s what the 8 years of Obama were all about. That’s what Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and every other Democrat is about. The fundamental destruction of the United States and the fundamental change towards a socialist nation in the likes of China, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, etc.
What they want is dangerous, and what they spew is dangerous. No, I would never harm any of them and anyone who wishes harm upon them, I disavow and no longer consider them conservatives because a true conservative would never want or do that.
But it truly must be understood that these people don’t care for America. THAT is what makes them the enemy of the people.
As for Lemon himself, I have nothing else to say. He’s a disgusting, hypocritical slimeball. I only have respect for him in that I respect his life and his right to his own opinion. Apart from that, he does not get nor deserve any sort of respect from anyone, let alone me.
I think he is someone in dire need of Christ. Looking into his eyes, I see someone who is dead inside. A typical trait for those who do not have faith in the Lord, and particularly for those on the Left. I sincerely hope he finds Christ. That is the best I can wish for him.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
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. Unlike the fake news media, I won’t lie to you about something being free. When I say this newsletter is free, that is the truth. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the biggest stories post-confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh has been a short portion of a segment on Don Lemon’s show on CNN. And this segment showcases the kind of ignorant and blatant racism that exists on the Left in more than one way.
Talking about Kanye West and his support for President Donald Trump, Don Lemon had three different guests on. Two of them were black (former Congressman Bakari Sellers and CNN contributor Tara Setmeyer) and another person, a white guy. But the bigger things to focus on are what the two black guests said on the show.
The Bakari Sellers started by saying: “Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read. And we have this now, and Donald Trump is going to use this and pervert it, and he’s gonna have somebody who can stand with him and take pictures.”
At this, Don Lemon was not shocked by his words. Matter of fact, he laughed when he saw the white guy’s face reacting to Bakari’s use of the n-word and his overall offensive statement which I will get to momentarily.
Then, Tara chimed in on the racism: “Listen, black folks are about to trade Kanye West in the racial draft, okay? They’ve had it with him. And he’s an attention whore like the President. He’s all of a sudden now the model spokesperson; he’s the token Negro of the Trump Administration? This is ridiculous. And no one should be taking Kanye West seriously; he clearly has issues; he’s already been hospitalized…”
There are a lot of different things I could say here that would ultimately make this article too long. So, I will try my best at summarizing.
Primarily, it should come as no surprise that this is insanely offensive to black people. These two ignoramuses call Kanye West, a Trump supporter, things like an attention whore, a token Negro, and insult his intelligence, saying that this is what happens when black folks don’t read. To me, that sounds exactly like something a Grand Wizard in the KKK would say. West’s support for Trump characterizes him as an ignorant black man who doesn’t read and has mental issues.
This is adamantly disgusting by CNN and not a single person on the Left gives a damn. Why? Because it’s black people calling West a token Negro and other things.
Which brings us to the other racist part of CNN. They knew damn well that if they had white people calling him a Negro, that would be considered racist. So they had other black people to do their bidding (kinda like slavery?) and call him these horrible, racist things. To the Left, a black person is not considered racist if they do or say something adamantly racist against someone else.
Particularly so if the person they target disagrees with the Left. I was going to say “particularly if the person they target is a conservative” but I would be hard-pressed to call West a conservative, at least for now. It’s gone past the point of political labels. Anyone that even remotely disagrees with the Left is prey to be slaughtered. Someone who must be totally destroyed.
And since West is a black Trump supporter, the Left feels comfortable having black people attack him using race.
Now, as I promised, I will now analyze what these disgusting people actually said.
“Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read…” Let’s be honest, there is nothing but racism and condescension here. To think this man was ever in Congress would shock me if I were not already aware of the Left’s hideous nature. And this sentence alone exposes how bigoted they are. Not only that, the fact that CNN had a black guy say this shows that not only are they bigoted, but cowards as well, hiding behind Bakari’s skin color.
Not only was that insanely offensive, it is also flat-out incorrect. Kanye West escaped the Left’s slave plantation, which is more than I can say for Lemon, Bakari and Tara. They call him uneducated and ignorant when they themselves are uneducated and ignorant. That’s not to say they did not go to college or public school. That is to say, however, that they were not educated. Rather, they were indoctrinated in the poisons of the Left.
For anyone to abandon the Democrat Party, they are abandoning the party of segregation during the Civil War. The party of racism that fought to keep slaves. The party of racism that was largely split in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would make a “pot calling the kettle black” joke about these disgusting people, but that might be misconstrued as racist just because the word “black” is included, so I will hold my tongue there.
Moving on to what Tara said, that was both offensive to black people AND to people who struggle with mental health. So that’s a double-whammy of a horrible statement made by a horrible person.
But perhaps the most horrendously ironic part comes outside of this particular segment. The same people that are calling Kanye West a token Negro are the same people who call Taylor Swift “brave” for supporting the Democrat candidate in her state of Tennessee.
This is the double-standard set forth by the Left. Any black person that supports Trump and/or is conservative is a token Negro. Any woman that is conservative is a traitor to her gender, as though that’s a line people should not cross. Any Hispanic that is conservative is a traitor to other Hispanics. Ditto for gay people who are conservative.
Anyone who is a conservative and is a minority is a traitor to their minority in the Left’s eyes. So allow me to retort in a few ways:
First, that’s dumb.
Second, that’s racist. My race does not defy who I am. While I am Hispanic, that does not mean being a Leftist. Far from it, considering most Hispanics tend to be Christian.
Third, if being Hispanic means I have to be a Democrat, then I sexually identify as a white man. That does not even make any sense, but that’s no longer a requirement in the Left’s world.
But this all speaks to the Left’s sense of entitlement. They feel as though they OWN minorities. That is why they say that conservative minorities are traitors to their race, gender, etc. By saying that, they expose the fact that they fundamentally believe they own minorities.
They believe they own women all-the-while claiming they fight for their liberation. They believe they own black people all-the-while calling for supposed racial equality. They believe they own minorities. This has been a staple of their political leanings since even before the Democrat Party was founded.
Even the 13th Amendment, which prohibits people from owning another person, can’t keep these new-age KKKers from believing they own people.
Perhaps it is for this reason that I should not be so surprised that CNN would have some black people attack Kanye West based solely on his race. However, that does not make it any less disgusting to witness.
CNN should be ashamed, but they clearly aren’t.
“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.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is 100% free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent straight into your inbox. And it’s easy too! All you have to do is click on the box on the right, input your email address and click “subscribe”. That’s it! So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While I have mostly been trying to stay off of this topic since everyone else is talking about it and I have already said likely what is the most important thing surrounding this issue: that the #MeToo movement is a Socratic issue of logic vs. ignorance, I feel compelled to talk about something that happened recently surrounding this entire issue, at least in regards to the way the MSM wants to portray this entire matter.
CNN interviewed a group of five Republican women from Florida last week to ask them some questions on their opinions surrounding this entire case.
Randi Kaye, the interviewer from CNN, asked: “A show of hands, how many of you believe Judge Kavanaugh when he says this didn’t happen?”
To which all five women raised their hands.
One of the women, named Lourdes Castillo De La Pena, elaborated further: “How can we believe the word of a woman from something that happened 36 years ago? This guy has an impeccable reputation. Nobody, nobody that has spoken ill will about him. Everyone that speaks about him. This guy’s an altar boy, a scout. Because one woman made an allegation? Sorry, I don’t buy it.”
Another, named Inna Villarino, added: “In the grand scheme of things, my goodness, there was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we – really? 36 years and she’s still stuck on that?”
With another woman, named Gina Sosa adding: “I mean, we’re talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect. You know, I’m a woman. I respect. But we’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school. Please, I would like to know.”
And another woman, named Angie Vazquez, was savvy enough to ask: “Why didn’t she come out when he was going into the Bush White House? Why didn’t she come out – he’s been a federal judge for over a decade.”
Now, I have mixed feelings about these responses. While I do appreciate that these women are smart enough not to fall for Ford’s evidence-less accusations, some of the answers here are fairly questionable.
Let’s begin with the first answer, the one that Lourdes gave. She mentions that it’s been 36 years since this incident happened and that it’s only been one woman stepping forward to accuse him. While I am of the belief that the Left could and likely would recruit other women to come forth and accuse Kavanaugh of things he likely didn’t do, my bigger issue is with her initial response.
It doesn’t really matter how long ago something happened if it was wrong. Assuming that what Ford is saying is the truth (this is basically the only time I will do this as I do not believe she’s telling the truth), objectively, the only problems I have with this being so old are that:
1) Ford likely won’t be able to remember things in too great a detail. As traumatizing as such an even is for women, it’s also something they’d like to forget.
2) I really do have to ask why she didn’t come forward earlier than this. I believe that maybe she didn’t go to the police because it’s either an embarrassing thing to admit (though it was just groping, according to her, so it’s not as embarrassing as full-blown rape) or the police wouldn’t do much to investigate the issue.
So while I do have problems with the fact that this is an allegation of something that happened 36 years ago, if it did happen, it doesn’t matter how long ago it was. Now, Lourdes could mean to say that Ford’s memory likely won’t be too good and thus, the accusation might not be very credible, but she did not elaborate much further on what she meant by mentioning how long ago it was and why should we believe her considering how long ago it was.
And perhaps my argument is shaped this way because of what the second woman, Inna, said, about it having been 36 years ago and she’s “still stuck on that”. Maybe that’s the reason I made the argument that it doesn’t matter how long ago it was, and I believe that’s a fairly good argument, but Lourdes might not necessarily have meant it as “it was over 30 years ago, just let go!” That’s how I heard it, but maybe she didn’t mean it that way.
Now, the answer that Gina Sosa gives, about this being a 17-year-old boy with raging hormones and “what boy hasn’t done this in high school” does irk me a lot.
Understanding such behavior does not necessarily mean excusing it. Using the “boys will be boys” argument in this instance, under the assumption that Ford is telling the truth, is asinine and wrong. If Kavanaugh did grope Ford when they were teenagers (I feel compelled to remind everyone that I do not believe Ford’s accusation and this is entirely hypothetical) and if they were both drunk, the fact that they were teenagers does not excuse their behavior.
I was a teenager once and I dealt with my share of hormones. I would look where I ought not to look, I would think what I ought not to think and had impulses. But I never acted on those impulses, at least not with other people.
Sosa asks what boy in high school hasn’t done something like that, well I’ll raise my hand and say that I never did. In high school is when I converted to Christianity. Of course, I still dealt with hormones and emotions and impulses, but I knew better than to act on them. If Kavanaugh was a Christian when he was 17, and I mean truly Christian, knowing right from wrong and doing things with the aim to please God, then I have a hard time believing that 1) Kavanaugh groped anyone and 2) he was illegally drinking and getting hammered to the point where he would grope someone.
That’s not to say we don’t sometimes stumble and do something wrong, of course. As I’ve explained in the past, we are all sinners and sin is wrong. But being a Christian tends to lower the chances of doing something like that (and don’t bring up the Catholic Church priests molesting young boys because those “priests” are not Christians and neither is the Pope for ignoring it).
So Sosa’s answer really is not good at all. Understanding that teenagers have hormones does not excuse the actions they partake because of those hormones. If my 15-year-old daughter went to a party, got drunk and got groped by a 17-year-old boy who was also drunk, I would do a number of things.
First, of course, ground her for going to an unsupervised party (I assume it was unsupervised if there was alcohol) and getting drunk at said party.
Second, I would go to the boy, give him a stern talking-to, give his parents a stern talking-to and encourage my daughter to file charges the following day (and not 36 YEARS LATER).
Finally, I would give her a big hug and tell her everything’s taken care of.
But that last one is beside the point. The point is that I would be righteously pissed if a boy did that do my daughter. She would not be entirely without blame for being there and getting drunk in the first place, but I would be angrier with the boy. So Sosa’s answer, even without having a daughter, honestly annoyed me. That’s entirely the wrong answer to give, truthful accusation or not.
Finally, we move on to the one answer to the interviewer’s question that I actually liked, which is Angie’s. Why didn’t Ford bring this up in the past? Why didn’t she bring this up when Kavanaugh was going to the Bush White House? Why not at any point when he was a federal judge, or when he was going to get confirmed as a federal judge? Why wait until now when he’s about to be on the Supreme Court, nominated by a President Ford adamantly disagrees with?
A lot of things surrounding this case raises questions. Such as: “why didn’t she go to the local police soon after it happened?” Or “Why did she write a letter to a Senator 36 years after the incident happened?” Or “If Ford really did not want to come out to accuse Kavanaugh, why write the letter in the first place?” Or “Why did Feinstein sit on that letter until about a week before his confirmation vote? Why not raise this during the hearings I will henceforth dub ‘the Spartacus hearing’?” Or “Why did no one find this issue during the extensive vetting process Kavanaugh underwent before the hearings?”
So there are a lot of questions surrounding this issue that, to me, diminish some credibility of Ford. Add that to the fact she has no evidence or witnesses to corroborate her story or even the willingness to go under oath to testify in a trial that would be equally fair for Kavanaugh and I find it astonishing for anyone to believe her for any reason other than that she’s a woman.
Now, there were more questions from the CNN interviewer that you can hear in the video posted below, but I won’t talk about those as this article is long enough as it is.
The overall point of sharing this is that I believe CNN’s intent for this interview was to have Republican women openly going against Kavanaugh. I think it was an effort to have other Republican women be against Kavanaugh because these ones were. Although, it clearly backfired. I don’t think CNN expected any woman, conservative or liberal, to support Kavanaugh regarding this issue.
Although, I find it interesting that they didn’t get 5 Democrat women to lie and say they were Republicans who were against Kavanaugh. I feel like that would be more along the lines of the fake news nature of CNN, but I guess they decided to go with legitimately Republican women here and thought even Republican women would be against Kavanaugh.
Regardless, CNN failed once again and I get to laugh at their flimsy attempt to destroy Kavanaugh and subsequently Trump, since that’s always the aim of CNN.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles as well as access to our online store sent straight into your inbox. And the best part is that it won’t cost you a single cent. And given the verse above, you know that I wouldn’t lie about that.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you’re an objective journalist who honestly cares about the safety and prosperity of the United States of America, you would cover Trump’s recent successes in trade with the EU and North Korea’s dismantling of a key missile launching station. However, if you are a propagandist who does not care about good things happening in America in the least, you cover the nothingburger that is the Michael Cohen tapes and milk them dry.
This is CNN, the most worthless name in news.
On Wednesday, CNN ran a segment on their exclusive Cohen tapes. However, this segment was a good deal different from the others. While the other segments focus on the supposed “hush” money Trump instructed Cohen to pay to Karen McDougal, this segment focuses on one line of audio delivered by Trump.
Now, if CNN is covering this, it must be important, right? It simply must be earth-shattering material that will surely drive people to vote Democrat this November, right?
Actually, it’s just Trump politely asking for a Coke.
I am not joking or making this up.
The literal headline is: “Trump caught on tape: Get me a Coke, please.”
Even for CNN standards, that’s pathetic.
The segment’s description reads: “President Trump was caught on tape ordering a Coke. CNN’s Jeanne Moos reports on why that is so popular.” Don’t hold your breath, the reason it’s so “popular” is idiotic nonsense.
The segment is simply meant to attack Trump, again, on his supposedly poor dietary habits and “drinking 12 Cokes a day”.
What is remarkable, however, is that Moos calls this the “juiciest part of the Trump-Cohen tape”. If that is the juiciest part, then they really have nothing to attack Trump on. But since they couldn’t possibly report objectively over the good things Trump’s been doing this week alone, including negotiating a better trade deal to avoid a trade war with the EU and seeing the North Korea summit’s success with the dismantling of launch sites in the communist nation, they have to resort to literally attacking him over his polite request for a beverage.
CNN filled this garbage, waste-of-time segment with comments from Twitter users also poking some fun at the comment, including a reworking of JFK’s famous “ask not what you country can do for you” speech (which today would be seen as the antithesis of the Democrat Party’s agenda) by saying: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask – Get me a Coke, please.”
It also shows some Twitter users actually baffled at the idea of Trump being nice to someone by adding “please”. That, really, is the saddest part of it all, because those people simply eat up the b.s. the MSM gives them in believing Trump is a monster 24/7 who will eat the children separated at the border.
Here’s the video on CNN’s segment.
The point I want to make here is that CNN were so beside themselves when they got an exclusive for releasing the Cohen tapes (and freely editing them if they want) that they realize they don’t have jack. The worst thing they have on him is something we already knew. Trump wasn’t the best guy around a decade or so ago (although comparing him to the freaks of Hollywood who fantasize about having sexual relations with children and the monsters who torment and rape/molest/abuse women for their leisure, you’d think Trump was a saint).
But aside from stuff we already knew, there doesn’t seem to be anything earth-shattering in these tapes, at least in the ones they’ve released so far. And since they are desperate children who can’t wait to tear Trump a new one, one would reasonably believe they’ve already released the worst they could find. I have no doubt that they’ve already heard everything in those tapes. If they’re releasing the “hush” money portion first and then follow that up with a worthless segment about him politely asking for a Coke, then I seriously doubt they have the Holy Grail of dirt on Trump that will finally bring him down.
Believe me, if they had something good on Trump from these tapes, they would have already released them. And chances are, given their ability to edit things to make them look and sound worse, they might even try doing that with something that is really nothing.
I mean, they’re legitimately trying to hurt Trump with “Get me a Coke, please.” They will try anything, at this point, to hurt Trump. And since they are among the biggest purveyors of fake news, I wouldn’t be surprised if they continue fabricating scandals with these tapes, even if they really show absolutely nothing.
Of course, they are more than welcome to try. 72% of Americans are already distrustful of the media. I want to see that number near the 100% mark and fabricating scandals like this is what can bring that number up.
I mean, this really is low, even for CNN. And I don’t mean “below the belt” kind of low. I mean “these people are desperate for anything” low. This, for a news source that considers themselves to be the most “trusted” name in news, is quite pathetic.
Not that that’s anything new, really. CNN is a factory of desperation at this point and have been for some time. I simply love it whenever the White House bans an unruly member of CNN’s WH correspondent’s team and CNN calls Trump a “fascist” for it. Or whenever Jim Acosta badgers Sarah Huckabee Sanders and she puts him in his place.
It’s comedy gold, at this point. Sadly, this comedy comes at a cost: lack of objective journalism.
It’s one thing to not like Trump. It’s another to make stuff up about him and refusing to cover things he does very well. If Obama had accomplished half of the things Trump has, especially in such a short time, the MSM would be praising him to the hills. I mean, they were already doing that when he was destroying the country on a daily basis, but still. They would be even more impressed and called him the inarguably best President of all time.
But because they are fake news, they pretended everything was fine as Obama was setting the country ablaze and pretend we basically live in Nazi Germany despite the fact that we have not seen a more safe world, maybe ever, with a denuclearizing North Korea, a defeated ISIS, and a defunded Iran (though due to Obama’s treasonous acts, Iran may get a nuke at some point).
And because they are fake news, they can’t come to grips with the reality that Trump has been doing an excellent job as POTUS.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is rare to see a member of the MSM acting not so much like a propagandist and more like an actual journalist, pressing the interviewee with tough, but fair questioning, regardless of the political party the interviewee belongs to.
CNN held a town hall meeting on Wednesday, in which survivors of the most recent school shooting got the chance to ask House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questions regarding gun control and what her party, as well as the government in general, can and/or will do regarding making schools safer.
Particularly, a female student named Alexis Wilson asked the following: “Where does the government stand on arming and training our teachers, much in the way we use air marshals on airplanes?”
A good and logical question to ask a member of Congress. Pelosi, being the Leftist that she is, simply dismissed the idea, saying that she and her peers “do not think that is the solution”, adding that she does not “support arming teachers and the rest.”
Upon this reply, Chris Cuomo did the unthinkable: he actually CHALLENGED Pelosi’s response and supported the student’s question. “There’s a little bit of an either-or problem with how we’re trying to approach solutions,” said Cuomo.
“The building we’re in now, the building you work in, the point of entry there is secure. You don’t walk in with a trench coat with a shotgun underneath your jacket, and get in. It doesn’t happen, you know this… Why can’t that be part of the equation? Talk about universal background checks, fine. Talk about mental health, how to identify them, money for treatment. But why either-or? Why not make schools safer?”
Pelosi is visibly shaken by the line of questioning and struggles to find a coherent or relevant answer, repeating that she does not believe it is a solution.
While it is always likely Nancy Pelosi will say something dumb, particularly if given the chance to speak for a long time, as the town hall provides, it is rare to see the interviewer issue such a good question that challenges the interviewee, regardless of whether the interviewee is a Democrat or Republican.
We don’t usually see the MSM be tough but fair with Democrats. They usually allow for Democrats to get away with a lot of things (not necessarily always, to their credit) and will usually side with Democrats.
Here, Chris Cuomo seemed more like a real journalist than a propagandist. I will give him credit for that, at least, since pretty much every other time he talks, it’s Leftist propaganda. But in this instance, he did a good job. So much so, in fact, that even NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch praised Cuomo for his job.
“This was a good line of questioning from Chris Cuomo here and he makes a good point about CNN’s security and controlled access points – which I’ve walked through many times.”
It also overall makes a good argument against people who do not believe we should install more security and metal detectors in schools, out of fear of making schools look like prisons.
Regarding this argument, I’ve talked about this before, but I will reiterate my points.
First of all, a school already feels like prison for any student that walks through those doors. Even I, who used to like going to school as a kid, hated going to school once I hit puberty and once I entered high school. It’s something in our hormones that makes us think school is a massive waste of time and we would rather be anywhere else but there. The only reason I was willing to go to school was because of my friends. Aside from that, school felt like prison… except you will likely find far less problems to solve in prison. (Math joke).
So adding security to our schools might make our schools look like prison, but they essentially already are for the students.
Second, because of the type of security at prisons, people don’t just walk in and shoot up the place. It’s a sad realization to see that prisons are hundreds of times more secure than our schools. Not that prisons shouldn’t be secure. Given the criminal element residing in prisons, security is a top priority. But our children should be able to feel just as safe, at least from those who would wish to shoot up the place.
Third, it’s not just our prisons that have high security and metal detectors. Airports also have a lot of security. Government buildings also have a lot of security. The only reason people use prisons to argue against metal detectors and added security is because that has more of an impact than saying “but then schools will feel like airports or government buildings!”
Nevermind the fact that schools ARE government buildings and are somehow less secure than the office of your Congressman or woman.
The argument of “don’t make schools like prisons” is entirely a psychological weapon. One can make the same comparisons to other government buildings, but that would not be anywhere near as impactful. So, those who do not wish to create any real change and solutions that will work use this argument.
Finally, the reason Pelosi and other Democrats don’t want to use this solution is because it is something that will actually help. Part of the reason the Santa Fe high school shooting isn’t made to be a big a deal as Parkland is because the perpetrator didn’t use an AR-15. In fact, there’s nothing remotely legal about what the shooter (whose name I refuse to share so as to not give him the satisfaction) did. He used an illegal gun, which he possessed illegally, and most of all, he committed the illegal action of KILLING people.
Not one single gun control measure or law proposed by any Democrat would’ve prevented the Santa Fe shooting. To be fair, not a single one would’ve also prevented Parkland, but they at least have somewhat of an argument to sell to people there.
In this case, the shooting doesn’t help the Left further their anti-gun agenda, so it’s almost entirely ignored.
And since added security can actually help, it means a reduction in the likelihood of a school shooting happening or being lethal for anyone other than the shooter. Such a result is detrimental to the Left’s anti-gun agenda, so they dismiss it as something that “wouldn’t work”.
It’s not that it wouldn’t work. It’s that it would put Democrats OUT of work. The Left’s ultimate goal, as we already know, is to establish Communism in the United States. That will not be possible if the American people still have their guns. Lenin made sure that people could not revolt against his rule once he established Communism in Russia and became its leader. Hitler took away people’s guns so that they couldn’t fight back against the Nazi’s Socialist rule.
And in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez issued an all-out ban of private gun ownership back in 2012. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate in 2015 stood at 57.15. Contrast that to the United States’ intentional homicide rate in the same year of 4.88, and you can see precisely how little help the ban in Venezuela was. And, by the way, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate is only the second highest in the Americas, with El Salvador, which also has some tight gun control laws, being first.
But those numbers are entirely irrelevant to the Left. They don’t honestly care if the world around them is in chaos, so long as they are safe and protected and they still are the ones with all the power. This is the case for the Left wherever you go. In Venezuela, people are starving and dying while Maduro celebrates his “victory” and issues probes into opposing news organizations. In North Korea, the situation is even more dire, with people being forced to clean and organize pictures of North Korea’s former leaders in order to avoid them and their families being sentenced to life in prison.
These are the rules that the Left wants to imitate here in America. What they all have in common, aside from being dictatorial rules of injustice, is that their people cannot rise up against the regimes in revolution. Sure, people are standing up in defiance over the sham elections in Venezuela, but I have little hope that much will come of it. Maduro, unless ousted by the military in a coup, will not leave office any time soon. Even then, the military could simply invoke an even harsher rule, so there is little hope for Venezuela’s rule change.
And that is precisely what the Left in Venezuela wants… and what the Left here wants. Unending rule and power, regardless of how many people will suffer.
To seek any solution other than gun control (which as I’ve said multiple times is not a solution) is a non-starter. Cuomo correctly points out the either-or hypocrisy of the Democrats. They don’t want to make schools safer. They just want to guarantee their own power becomes eternal.
Yet another case of humans trying to be like God.
“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Earlier in the month, CNN columnist Richard Edmond Vargas wrote an article published to CNN’s website titled: “Guns alone don’t kill people, patriarchy kills people.”
It’s rather difficult to be wrong about multiple things starting with the title alone. Kudos to this guy for being the definition of wrong.
Vargas writes: “Patriarchy is a social system that defines men as being inherently violent, dominant and controlling while rewarding them with power for being that way. It is no secret, especially these days, that we live in a patriarchal society. Why are we continually surprised when a man takes up arms and commits mass murder?”
Now, I actually agree with his question at the end there, but for vastly different reasons.
We shouldn’t be surprised when someone (be it man or woman) decides to shoot up some place and kill tons of people. Why? Not because of feminists’ biggest excuse as to why they are not successful: the Patriarchy, but rather because we live in a culture that does not value life in the slightest.
It’s not the fact that men can be violent that causes these things. If it did, we would have far more mass shootings than we do. All men (and women) are capable of violence. If that was all it took to kill people, the world would struggle to maintain much of a population.
It’s the fact that abortion is seen as a “liberating” action for women. It’s the fact that, regardless how little logical sense it makes, a lot of people are atheists. Because from an atheist’s point of view, if there is nothing before we are alive and nothing after, why would what happens in the middle have any sort of meaning? If there is no definitive moral code and people can do things that “feel” right to them, then we have people like Cruz, like Stalin and like Hitler.
It’s not male pride that is an issue here. It’s a society that feels next to nothing, at best, at taking life. It’s a society that feels as though there is no higher being judging them and morality is relative that is the issue.
And it’s not just male pride that Vargas blames here. It’s also “cartoons, video games and contemporary politicians [that] exalt male violence.” In other words, he also blames Trump.
And that is where I really have to laugh at this guy’s argument. Cartoons? Ignore the fact that cartoons have actually gotten far less violent from the days of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner (and even that wasn’t insanely violent, but more funny since, you know, they are CARTOONS!), but there is also no evidence that links cartoons to violence.
Likewise, there is no evidence to link video games to violence. Yes, there are violent video games out there, but if that were cause for shootings like these, they would happen more often. Game series like Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Fallout, Hitman and others are massively popular, all violent, and cannot be pinpointed as being the source for violence in the real world.
What IS a source of violence, at least for men, since that is the major topic here, is a lack of a male parental/role model figure in their lives. And with the most recent sissification of the Boy Scouts of America, there will be more young boys who have to find other means for which to learn how to become a man.
Granted, I am a case for both not having a (at least good) male parental role for some of my life and not having gone to the Boy Scouts (to be fair, I wasn’t all that interested when I was younger and was also living in another country for most of my childhood, but I understand its relevance and importance in helping young boys to become men), so I have my work cut out for me in terms of becoming a man, but I think I have a pretty good idea of what I should be like thanks to my HEAVENLY Father.
Which brings me to another source of violence, at least for men: the lack of GOD in their lives.
I know I already sort of mentioned that earlier when I was talking about atheists, but I will retouch on that and expand on it.
The Bible, aside from being the history of humanity with the Lord and the demonstration of God’s unending glory and power, can also be a fantastic guide for people’s lives, both in terms of morality and people’s roles (yes, I do mean gender roles. “Gasp! What a hideous word”, says the hyper-sensitive liberal).
Ephesians chapter 5, verses 22-31 are a good guide for marriage. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and as they love their own bodies.
The book of Proverbs offers a lot of guidance in terms of controlling your emotions, valuing wisdom, keeping yourself from being adulterous, valuing hard work, valuing integrity ahead of riches, valuing truth, and many other things.
The book of Psalms offers, above all else, a 150-chapter-long reminder of just who is in control at all times and in whom we ought to trust in times of sadness and happiness, in times of success and failure, in times of misery and joy.
I believe those books and parts of Ephesians can be transformative in people’s lives and attitudes. And yet, they are often times either mocked, ignored or attacked by evil people.
Those Ephesians verses stir up a lot of strife in the Left, believing it to be evil. Trust me, there is not a smidgen of evil in the entire Book, for it is the Word of God we are talking about here. And there is not a smidgen of evil in God.
So, those who follow these evil people live their lives devoid of His Word and largely devoid of Him who gave them their lives in the first place.
Hitler was a Darwinist who sought to create a new, more advanced species of humans. Hitler saw no value in human life that he deemed imperfect, even declassifying Jewish people as people altogether. Darwin saw indigenous people acting savagely and thought there was some sort of connection with primates because of that.
The Theory of Evolution gave credence to Atheism and thus, gave credence to the devaluation of human life and morality, dictating that men are fundamentally no different from monkeys and that morality is based entirely on one’s own judgment.
It’s THIS philosophy that has led to today’s culture. It’s THIS philosophy that has led lost souls to commit massive acts of evil.
Go through every page of every book in the Bible. I challenge you to find even one person in it who was a strong believer in the Lord, followed in His ways as well as he could, and still committed crimes against humanity, at least by today’s standards.
Cain killed Abel because he was angry with God over the Lord not accepting his offering of fruit, but He did accept Abel’s offering of the firstborn of his flock (Cain tended to the ground and Abel tended to the sheep). Cain chose to be angry and stray from God, slaughtering his younger brother.
King David sent Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, to the toughest battles against Syria so that he might die, and that David might have Bathsheba to himself (and had already laid with her prior to even meeting Uriah). David was lustful and adulterous, straying from God, and sent one of his most loyal men (Uriah chose to sleep in front of David’s house because he didn’t feel right sleeping in comfort with his wife while his brothers were sleeping in harsher conditions) to die in battle.
All men in history who have committed atrocities or evil in any amount have all been men who strayed from God or didn’t really know Him.
And the men who commit atrocities or evil in any amount in this day and age are the exact same way. Just look at Kim Jong-un, Nikolas Cruz, the Las Vegas Shooter, any Muslim terrorist, any abortionist.
All are Godless (Muslims have a vastly different god, so I count them as Godless) and all commit/have committed atrocities.
So if you want to blame anything for today’s violence, don’t blame guns, because violence has been around for far longer than guns. Don’t blame the Patriarchy, because good men teach their boys how to become good men like themselves. Blame Atheism. Blame a lack of God in people’s hearts.
And as a matter of fact, read the following bible verse. That alone should give you a good idea as to what I have been talking about thus far.
“Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Crappiest Name in News is back at it again, this time defending Nikolas Cruz, the SHOOTER of a high school in Parkland, Florida, from comments made by the POTUS. They hate the President so much that they’d rather side with the shooter over him, it seems.
Trump sent out a series of tweets recently. The tweets read: “I never said ‘give teachers guns’ like was stated on Fake News CNN & NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving ‘concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience’ – only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions. Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. A ‘gun free’ school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!”
“History shows that a school shooting lasts, on average, 3 minutes. It takes police & first responders approximately 5 to 8 minutes to get to the site of crime. Highly trained, gun adept, teachers/coaches would solve the problem instantly, before the police arrive. GREAT DETERRENT!”
“If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school. Cowards won’t go there… problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work!”
So we can see why CNN has a problem with these tweets. They offer a solution that would actually work, which is the last thing the Left wants.
But more specifically, they condemn Trump for using the word “sicko” and asked their “experts” about the “mental damage” such words would do to someone who suffers from the same things Cruz did.
So they’ve lowered themselves to the level of DEFENDING the sicko shooter from “mean, ol’ Trump”. Can these people be any less likeable?
The article reads: “The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, struggled with depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism, according to a 2016 Florida Department of Children and Families report. But having a mental health diagnosis does not mean he would become violent, many experts say.”
DID THE EXPERTS FORGET THAT HE DID BECOME VIOLENT?! Certainly his mental health issues are part of the reason. No one in his right mind would do what he did.
“And although Trump has said he wants to focus on mental health to stop school shootings, calling Cruz a ‘sicko’ doesn’t help, those experts claim.”
What shall we call him, then? A victim of his situation? Someone who’s not quite right in his head but we shouldn’t blame him for what he did?
These questions are rhetorical, of course. To the Left, everyone is a victim. Cruz is a victim of his mental health issues. Ignore the fact that HE KILLED 17 PEOPLE! I’m sorry, but this evil and messed up bastard won’t get any sympathy from me.
As for the second rhetorical question, I wouldn’t be surprised if they really thought this way. After all, everyone on the Left is blaming the gun instead of the one to use it, or the people who failed to stop him, or the system that failed to properly help him, or the political party that has been on the warpath to destroy morality and give people their own sense of what is right and wrong for them.
To me, the gun was simply a tool. Much in the same way the Tsarnaev brothers used a cooking pot and turned it into a bomb as a tool of destruction. Much in the same way a terrorist in New York used a U-Haul truck as a tool of destruction. Much in the same way that criminals use knives, blades and hatchets in England as tools of destruction. Much in the same way terrorists on 9/11 used planes as tools of destruction.
Yet, we never heard of “cooking pot control” or “U-Haul truck control” or “Knife, blade and hatchet control” or “plane control”. We only ever hear of gun control, which is ridiculous.
Either way, I’ll get off this tangent and back on topic.
The fact that CNN would side with the shooter and victimize him just to oppose Trump might just be one of the more sickening things they’ve done in recent time. They think Trump shouldn’t call him for what he is: a sicko.
I’ll use that word as often as I can just so that it becomes engrained in these idiots’ heads. Nikolas Cruz was a sicko. He had mental health issues, and that’s unfortunate, but that doesn’t excuse his actions. Rather, it better helps explain them. That’s not to say that everyone who suffers from the same thing would shoot up a school, but it offers more of an explanation as to why he did it.
Only a sicko would shoot up any place, be it a school, church, theater, what have you. I’ve used this example before in a previous article, but I’ll use it again. Consider Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy. Let’s add Cruz to this example too.
Like I said in that article, both were evil and messed up in the head, but in different ways. I would compare Cruz to Bundy more than Hitler. Cruz, like Bundy, killed random people (though Bundy focused more on women) and was more “chaotic evil”. I offer a better explanation for such a description in that previous article.
Ted Bundy had to have something seriously wrong with him to have done what he did. He also had to have an evil heart to do what he did. The same can be said of Hitler (again, read the previous article to see how the two are different) and the same can be said of Cruz.
He was sick, of that there is no doubt. So why wouldn’t we call him a sicko? He KILLED people! No sane person does that. For CNN to defend him based on this is flat out ridiculous, if not outrageous.
Their hatred for Trump has made their minds so warped that they’d rather side with a killer than with the POTUS. And make no mistake, this is siding with him. That’s not an exaggeration.
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
CNN sent out a reporter to a Florida woman’s home to talk about a pro-Trump event that was orchestrated by Russian trolls. Given that CNN is bloodthirsty when it comes to anything involving Trump and Russians, I’m not surprised that they jumped at the opportunity to locate a private citizen, harass her and accuse her of working with the Russians, even if it was unwittingly.
The reporter harassed her and continued to ask her accusatory questions, saying that she was involved with a pro-Trump Facebook group that orchestrated the event, which seemingly was run by Russian trolls.
He accused her of being involved with the Russians, whether she knew it or not. When she defended her fellow Trump supporters who attended the rally, he accused them of being under the “direction of groups that were associated with Russians...”
He then continued accusing her, saying: “But did you realize that you guys were in communication electronically with Russians?"
It’s obvious by that last question that he does not understand what Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein meant when he said: “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”
I know for certain that CNN heard Rosenstein say that. They know that, according to Rosenstein, no American was a knowing participant in this. And yet, they look up and find this woman online, discover her address and accuse her of working with the Russians whether she knew it or not.
What they did is the very definition of doxing someone. Doxing means “to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge.”
CNN published her full name (which I won’t share since she’s a PRIVATE CITIZEN and I’m not a piece of garbage like CNN), which led to her being further harassed by online users.
I won’t share most of the comments, since they’re all pretty nasty coming from nasty people, but here are just a few:
“You should be hanged for treason!!!”
“In my opinion you should be tried for collusion with Russia. Your ignorance and inability to realize you were promoting Russian propaganda is not a defense. Look at what you’ve done. You should be ashamed of yourself.”
“You disgusting flabby skinned yellow toothed hag. Communist pig. You’re scum.”
That last one confused me a bit, since Hillary is far closer to being a Communist than Trump and his supporters are, but still an overall nasty comment.
Now, there’s a good reason I chose to share these specific comments.
You see, Leftist whacko Michael Moore attended an anti-Trump rally held at the Trump Tower called the “Trump is NOT my president” rally. This rally was also orchestrated by Russian trolls, given what Mueller uncovered for the indictments.
How is it, then, that CNN isn’t going to Michael Moore’s house and accusing him of working with the Russians? How is it that they only went after a Trump supporter and harassed her for being an unwitting participant in a Russian-troll-orchestrated event but choose to ignore that Moore did the same thing and with an even bigger voice given his celebrity status?
By the previous comments’ logic, Moore should be hanged for treason. Moore should be tried for collusion with Russia. The fact that he didn’t know he was part of it shouldn’t be an excuse and he should be ashamed of himself.
Now, since I’m a logical person, I’m not going to use these same tactics on Moore. I don’t think he should be “hanged for treason” or anything of the sort. But then, people shouldn’t suggest the female Trump supporter should be either.
Not to mention the other significant portion of Rosenstein’s revelations. There is no allegation that this altered the outcome of the election. Meaning that this whole ordeal, whether it happened or not, was not going to change the outcome of the election.
Trump won DESPITE Russian meddling in the election. Not to mention that the people recently indicted by Mueller were not part of the Kremlin. They weren’t part of the Russian government.
These Russians organized pro- and anti-Trump rallies to stir up conflict in our election and the American people participated.
The ones who attended the pro-Trump rallies were all ardent Trump supporters, not Russian agents. And the ones who attended anti-Trump rallies were all ardent Trump haters, not Russian agents.
But that’s not the point. The point is that CNN doxed an American citizen, harassed her and accused her of working with the Russians whether she knew it or not and have caused other people online to harass her as well.
CNN, by posting her full name, have made it easier for anyone to find her online profile and the city she lives in (again, I’m not going to share that because it’s private information and I’m not a scumbag like CNN).
Now, the video of the harassment doesn’t say whether or not she gave them permission to post her face or full name. If they didn’t ask and she’s getting harassed in this manner and risks being attacked by someone with better researching skills who could find her exact address, she might be able to sue CNN.
I’m no lawyer, but I know you can’t post someone’s profile like that without permission.
Regardless, it speaks to the disgusting nature of CNN and the Left as a whole for them to find a Trump supporter who’s a private citizen and harass her with accusations and releasing her full name for people to find online and further harass her.
This disgusting act paints CNN for what they are: the Crappiest Name in News. Maybe that’s what CNN stands for.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...