Allow me to better explain what I say in that title. I’m not saying that the students support churches being allowed to reopen – they very much want them closed, at least most of them do. I am saying, however, that they recognize, to some extent, that it is hypocritical of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to allow some places to reopen, like college campuses and some businesses, while forcing churches and synagogues to remain closed. So, in all, I am at least glad that they can recognize the hypocrisy of the governor.
 
At any rate, let’s get to the Campus Reform video (below). In this video, Campus Reform has Addison Smith reporting at, presumably, a New York college (they don’t mention which one).
 
Smith begins by noting that during this pandemic, particularly during the summer, we have seen plenty of protests (and riots, though he doesn’t mention that) over the death of George Floyd while in police custody, and notes that that was happening while multiple states were simultaneously pushing heavy lockdown restrictions on businesses and other types of gatherings, such as religious gatherings. He then goes on to ask if the protests should have been condemned for being allowed to violate the same orders that other people had to follow, or if they were rightfully exempted.
 
One of the students said that “You can’t really outright ban the ability to, you know, assembly and protest, but what we believe is that they should’ve, sort of, restricted it in a way… like enforce social distancing.”
 
So this student believes that, as it is recognized in the constitution, the states cannot outright ban assembly and protest, but the government should have been able to enforce, at the very least, social distancing a bit more. To which I somewhat agree. I do not have an issue with the protests themselves (I have plenty of issue with the riots, of course, since no one has the right to do that), and the protestors have the right to protest. What I have an issue with is the blatant double standard that governors were cool with people not social distancing and, in some cases, not wearing masks (both Schumer and Lightfoot were seen not wearing masks during a celebration following Biden’s “win”), saying that those gatherings are allowed because of the purpose of the gathering being important to those people or important to society.
 
Gathering for worship is also important for the people who do so/desire to do so, and it definitely is also important to society since Psalm 33:12 says: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His inheritance!” A nation which turns its back to God is not a nation blessed by God, so for the sake of the American society, it is important that we worship God, and part of that means being allowed to do so in churches. No, it is not necessary for people to worship God in churches, as a church is wherever at least two Christians gather to worship, but corporate worship of God is considerably better when done in one’s local church building.
 
The protesters have the right to protest, as it is detailed in the First Amendment. The First Amendment also recognizes freedom of religion, and restricting church gatherings in this way is not only hypocritical but also a restriction of people’s First Amendment rights. If this were a disease like the plague, Christians would know to take the best precautions available and would be willing to forego going to church so as to not needlessly gather. But this virus is nowhere near as deadly as many claim it is, with a 99.97% survival rate for most people. There are more dangerous things out there, but we are willing to go to church anyway despite those risks. So why can’t we be allowed to go to church over the Chinese coronavirus, particularly when others are allowed to gather, in massive numbers, to protest the death of a very troubled man?
 
This is a constant theme throughout this article and even throughout the overarching argument. The woman who answers after the first student says that the protesters were “rightfully exempted”, but even she ultimately recognizes that if they are allowed to physically attend college, that people should be allowed to go to church.
 
Another student said: “I think… you should listen to the rules but I also think… if you really believe in what you say and you think… you’re, uh, being treated unfairly, I do think there is maybe some wiggle room with that.”
 
I also somewhat agree with this student. I think people should listen to the rules (when they make sense, at least), but it is still hypocritical to allow people who say they are being treated unfairly to be allowed so much wiggle room so as to outright JUSTIFY AND DEFEND the very actions which have been disparaged when done by others.
 
Before the George Floyd protests and riots, there were anti-lockdown protests. The Left disparaged and attacked those protesters, saying they were putting themselves and others at risk by gathering in such a way, even if they were wearing masks (and many of them were). The George Floyd protesters did pretty much the same exact thing, but because it was a favorable narrative to the Left, they were allowed to happen.
 
I don’t mind following the rules (that make sense), but you can’t expect me to be willing to just accept such blatant double standards. If anti-lockdown protesters aren’t allowed to protest, then neither are George Floyd protesters. If George Floyd protesters are allowed to protest, then so are anti-lockdown protesters.
 
And according to this kid’s line of thinking, if Christians gather because we believe in what we are saying and because we believe we are being treated unfairly (and we are in many places), then there should be allowed some wiggle room in the rules to allow us to gather together for our cause.
 
Humans don’t tend to like injustice when we see it. It’s why we have gotten rid of slavery. It’s why we have done away with segregation (though the woke people out there seem to be, at best inadvertently, wanting to go back to segregation of the races for the “benefit” of black people). It’s why looking at Joe Biden be illegitimately called President-elect infuriates me to no end.
 
Protesters are allowed to protest (not riot, and don’t let anyone tell you there is no difference); the cause should not be what determines whether one kind of protest is allowed and another disallowed.
 
At any rate, the woman who earlier said the George Floyd protests were “rightfully exempt” also went on to say: “I think the reason for pandemic lockdown is because people are dying and, like, prioritizing the group of people dying that includes white people versus just black people is… I think you kind of have to put pandemic regulations on the same level as protesting for George Floyd.”
 
Now, I don’t know what her point is in bringing up the white people vs. the black people in relations to the Chinese virus, but basically she is saying that protesting for George Floyd is just as important as the regulations, meaning that the regulations should not prevent those protests.
 
But again, how is it fair to allow the George Floyd protests over the anti-lockdown protests or the church gatherings? Why is it okay for one group of people to gather for one reason, but another group of people cannot be allowed to gather for a different reason?
 
And if the protests and regulations are important, and the regulations exist because “people are dying” then doesn’t that mean that allowing the protests to happen means those are acceptable deaths? Do their lives no longer matter in terms of protecting them from the virus because they want to go out and protest what they perceive to be racial injustice?
 
Of course, the vast majority of the protesters will live because the virus is very survivable, but that’s not a point liberals tend to make. When talking about the virus, they view it strictly through the lens of it being deadly (thanks in part to Cuomo himself saying that “the virus is death” in one of his press conferences). So if the virus is so deadly, then why allow for “grieving black people” to gather and protest, risking catching this deadly virus?
 
When the protesters are allowed to protest, that means that their right to protest supersedes the lockdown orders. It’s not true, at all, that they are “on the same level”. Lockdown orders and protests are antithetical to one another, and when one is prioritized over another, that leaves an imbalance. By their very definitions, they cannot be on the same level.
 
It’d be like saying that planes are allowed to fly, but can’t be allowed to take off. If you’re allowing the planes to fly, by definition, you have to disregard the take-off restrictions.
 
At any rate, getting to the question of Cuomo banning religious gatherings but allowing other things like liquor stores and other businesses to open, many students noted how hypocritical Cuomo was and how wrong it was for him to do that.
 
One of the students pressed the issue of thinking about others and not just ourselves, which does not really answer Smith’s question and does not answer why churches should be closed but George Floyd protests should be allowed to happen. Again, if the virus is as deadly as they say it is and we should be thinking about others and not just ourselves, then why allow protesters to gather? Don’t their lives matter? Doesn’t their safety matter? Are they selfishly thinking about only themselves when they gather in such a way? And if not, then why am I thinking about only myself for wanting to go to church but they aren’t only thinking about themselves for wanting to protest? Why is it different for the two situations?
 
If it’s because of the cause, that’s an awful reason. It means that only *certain* kinds of people have rights and others do not. It’s the Animal Farm quote of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It’s bullcrap inequality and anyone with a brain could recognize that.
 
The cause of “racial injustice” should not supersede my cause of worshipping the Lord and growing His Kingdom. The cause of Joe Biden’s “victory” should not supersede my cause of wanting to reopen so that people don’t starve to death.
 
Now, interestingly enough, that very same student also went on to say that the governments should NOT be forcing churches to close, and it should be up to the churches themselves whether or not they wish to close or remain open, which I 100% agree with. If a church’s leadership thinks that there is a great risk for the people in the congregation (one of the churches I used to frequent in Florida was almost entirely comprised of older people, so I suspect they chose to close down at least for a while), then they have every right to decide to close. But that decision should not be taken away from them. If a church’s leadership does not think that there is great risk to the congregation, and the community around them, then they should be allowed to remain open.
 
It's about weighing the risks versus the benefits, and that decision should be left up to church leadership, not the government, regardless of whether or not they are well-meaning.
 
To end things, since this article is long enough as it is, Smith asked if Cuomo overstepped the boundaries of his power, and the students pretty much all agreed, and that churches have the right to remain open with proper Chinese virus guidelines.
 
So I am glad to see that the students of this New York college (whichever one it is) can recognize that, even if they still support lockdowns, churches should not be forced to close down particularly when other things such as college campuses and businesses are allowed to reopen.
 
Here’s hoping they further develop their reasoning skills and come to recognize how utterly hypocritical and damaging the Leftist ideology is.
 
Psalm 144:15
“Blessed are the people of whom this is so; blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.”

Veteran’s Day has come and gone, with many of us remembering the heroic struggles our soldiers have had to endure throughout the history of our country in the various wars that America has participated. So, Campus Reform’s Eduardo Neret went to Howard University in Washington D.C. to ask various students if they could think of any war the U.S. has participated in that could be considered a “just” war or a war that we could find justifiable reasons for entering and fighting (video below).
 
Not one student could come up with any war that they viewed as justified of their own merit. And even when asked if they thought WWII was a justified war for the U.S. to get involved, some students still believed there was no justifiable reason for having entered the conflict.
 
One student argued: “I don’t believe America fought [WWII] for the just reasons.” Another student said: “I don’t think [WWII] was necessary.”
 
Although a few students recognized World War II and the Civil War as being justified wars (once they were mentioned after previously having argued that there were no wars that were justified), many still held their ground and argued that no war was justified.
 
However, I know exactly why it is that many think this way: ignorance.
 
Now, I’m not trying to insult these kids. I’m not calling them dumb. But they are lacking in knowledge, which is what ignorance is. Why do I think this way? Well, one of the students who actually came around to the idea that World War II was justified gave the following response to having changed her mind:
 
“[WWII] [was] a good cause for the greater good because at the end of the day we got our freedom, and we are no longer under Great Britain.”
 
The poor girl is confusing World War II with the Revolutionary War. Either that or she thinks that Great Britain was in Nazi Germany’s place in World War II and we were under their control at the time, but I think the former is more likely.
 
The ones that continued arguing that WWII was not a justified war, when Pearl Harbor was brought up, said that that was a reason for having entered the war, but not a justified one. Again, I gotta blame ignorance here.
 
During the early 1940s, the general sentiment regarding World War II was that we shouldn’t enter the war. We had no reason to. Hitler was not a direct threat to us and we were supplying Great Britain with weapons and equipment.
 
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has in their records public opinion in the U.S. about joining the war. When World War II began on September 1st, 1939, Gallup asked the following question: “If it looks within the next few months as if England and France might be defeated, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our troops abroad?” 42% said “yes”, 48% said “no” and 10% said they didn’t have an opinion.
 
The poll was close between the two answers, but the more popular idea was to stay out of the war, even if England and France were defeated over the next few months. I think the reason for it to have been this close is because if Germany had defeated both so quickly, it might’ve sent people in the U.S. into a panic, considering we were at least friendly towards those two countries, so the next target could’ve either been us or the Soviet Union.
 
On October 6th, 1939, when Poland was conquered by the Nazis and divided between them and the Soviets, Gallup asked the same question: if Germany defeats England and France, should we declare war on Germany? This time around, we found that only 29% of those surveyed said “yes” and 71% said “no.” We didn’t want to get ourselves involved in what was mostly seen as a European conflict.
 
On May 10th, 1940, when Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France, Gallup asked if we should declare war on Germany. This time, only 7% said “yes” and 93% said “no”. It should be noted that our military wasn’t exactly in tip-top shape before we entered the war. We only had a little more than 450,000 total military personnel in 1940. In 1941, with the draft having been passed by Congress in late 1940, that number jumped to 1.8 million, then to 3.9m in 1942, 9.1m in 1943, 11.6m in 1944 and 12.2m by the end of the war in 1945.
 
Our military was in poor shape but once drafting and more spending was implemented, we created the most powerful military the world had ever seen by that point.
 
By June of 1940, when France surrendered to Germany, public sentiment was still largely against going to war, but those who wished to enter the war and help became more numerous. 35% said they wanted to help England win against Germany, even at the cost of entering the war, and 61% said they should stay out of the conflict altogether.
 
By the time the draft was implemented in September of 1940, more people wanted to help (52%) than not do anything (44%). By November of 1940, when FDR was elected to his third term as POTUS, 60% wanted to help England and 40% wanted to keep out. In March of 1941, when Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act which authorized Roosevelt to provide Britain with weapons, vehicles and equipment, 67% wanted to help England and 33% wanted to keep out.
 
On June 22nd, 1941, when Hitler decided to turn his armies towards the Soviet Union, 62% said they wanted to help England and 33% said they wanted to keep out. Even on September 4th, 1941, when a German U-boat submarine attacked an American destroyer, the USS Greer, prompting FDR to authorize US ships to attack German vessels on sight, 64% wanted to help England and 30% wanted to keep out.
 
By November of 1941, when relations between the U.S. and Japan were at some of their most tense (pre-war, of course) and it looked as though we would fight them, 68% said they wanted to defeat Germany and 28% said they wanted to stay out of the war.
 
However, on December 7th, 1941, when the Japanese orchestrated a surprise attack on the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where 2403 people died, mostly military personnel and 68 civilians, this served to ignite the spark of war in the American engine. Gallup asked: “Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?”, 91% said “yes”, only 7% said “no” and 3% said they didn’t have any opinion.
 
This was the 9/11 of 1940s America (and the only attack of this scale on American soil until 9/11) and our country cried for war, cried for justice against Japan. And so, we officially declared war on Japan, which prompted Germany to declare war on the U.S., leading us to join World War II against the Axis powers.
 
No, we didn’t enter the war out of the kindness of our hearts to help Great Britain to defeat Hitler. Why would we have, when FDR’s New Deal was so similar to Mussolini’s fascism, wherein the welfare state was created and capitalism was put into the hands of the state, instead of the private sector? FDR was every bit the Leftist that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were and sought to socialize our economy. The eventual matchups of FDR-Stalin vs. Hitler-Mussolini (and Hirohito) were matchups of convenience for the time being. They were all Leftist, “government is God” type of leaders. Mussolini praised FDR’s book titled “Looking Forward” and the official Nazi newspaper, “Volkischer Beobachter” praised the New Deal.
 
We entered World War II not because FDR saw much or any threat in the fascists and Nazis in Europe infecting the rest of the world (he had his own brand of fascism that he was already implementing) but because we were attacked and over 2000 of our servicemen died at the hands of an Imperial Japan that we weren’t exactly getting along with.
 
When you are attacked, you have to respond. And that’s what we did. Those who would argue that we entered WWII without justifiable reasons are ignorant of history. For the most part, Americans wanted nothing to do with World War II, or to at most help out England without getting involved in the fighting if at all possible. But once it appeared war was imminent, and especially once it was brought to our shores, sentiment changed and we wanted to join and win the war.
 
Now, don’t get me wrong. Generally speaking, I’m anti-war. If it can be avoided, I would like to not get ourselves involved in wars, particularly in endless wars, which is why I hate that pro-war Republicans and Democrats are in Congress.
 
However, there are wars that we simply cannot avoid and wars that can be easily justified. The Revolutionary War was a war in which we sought our independence from a tyrannical monarch in Europe. That was justified. The Civil War was a war in which the North sought to both free all slaves in the country and reunite the Union after Southern Democrat States seceded following Lincoln’s election. That was very much justified.
 
And World War II most certainly can be justified considering both the threat that Hitler posed on the world and the attack that we suffered in Pearl Harbor.
 
Again, there are wars that are not justified and simply make no sense. But there are those that are essential and there are justifiable reasons for entering. I couldn’t imagine telling Poland that they weren’t justified in fighting Germany when they were being invaded by them.
 
These children, the ones that said no war was justified and stuck to it after being reminded of World War II, should be educated regarding history. But it’s a sad state of affairs when they are attending a college and have such minimal knowledge of the history of this country.
 
Ignorance is the real problem here. I would like to mention that every single one of the students asked were African-American, so you would think at the very least, they would’ve brought up the Civil War, since if the North had not done anything about the South, most black people in the country would be slaves (or at least would’ve been for a longer period of time).
 
But nope. Not one instance could they think of a just war. These kids aren’t being educated; they are being indoctrinated. They were taught that war is generally bad and that America is at fault for most of the conflicts we see today and the world has seen for some time. That no war America gets involved with is justified because we are the bad guys.
 
This is the sort of nonsensical and untruthful garbage being taught in our education systems today. How is it that these kids, or at least one of them, thinks that World War II was a war where we gained our independence from Britain?! The fact that there even is one person who thinks this is a damning statement about our education system.
 
James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

The socialist lunatic Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular Democrat candidates for college students, enjoying 31% total approval and a three-point lead over Elizabeth Warren in a College Pulse election tracker poll. I can’t say I’m surprised, considering the socialist training camp that colleges and universities are in this day and age.
 
Regardless, as he is a very popular candidate, when students were asked to guess how much money Bernie gave to charity (with him being a millionaire and railing against the 1% for not “paying their fair share”), they believed he gave a good amount of his money to charity. After all, if he himself is so seemingly passionate about millionaires and billionaires giving as much money as possible, he ought to lead by example, right?
 
Answers to the question varied, with some believing he gave around 7 or 10% of his total income, some believing he gave upwards of 20%, and one believing he gave 75% of his total income to charity.
 
Clearly, with the sort of message Bernie gives, he is expected to live by the very ethos he spews. But the students were ultimately shocked to find that Bernie Sanders gave very little of his money to charity. As in, absurdly little, even by millionaire standards.
 
You see, according to tax returns that were released earlier this year, Bernie Sanders made $1,073,333 in a single year. Clearly, he’s doing pretty well for himself. Now, can you guess how much of that he actually gave to charity? Given the title, you might expect very little. Maybe 5%, or 4% or even 1%.
 
Well, he gave only $10,600. That’s less than 1%. More specifically, he gave 0.98% of his money to charity.
 
A few students acknowledged that it was “hypocritical” of Bernie to preach about the rich paying their “fair share” when he, himself, gives so little to charity.
 
Another student, funny enough, seemed to have retracted some of her support for Bernie after finding out the truth about his greed. Earlier in the video, she had said that she thinks he’s “definitely progressive… I think he’s what our country needs at this point.” However, she later backtracked that support by saying: “I’m not a particular Bernie fan.”
 
She also acknowledged the hypocrisy surrounding Bernie in this instance.
 
Another student even went so far as to roast Bernie for it, saying: “Well, he’s always talking about the one percent, maybe that’s the one percent he gave to charity.”
 
Now, one student defended Bernie, saying that it’s “his money, he can do what he wants with it.” Generally speaking, I agree. People should be allowed to do what they want with the money they earn. However, when they do that while simultaneously telling others how they CAN’T do that and how they HAVE to pay their “fair share”, then that comes across as highly hypocritical and utterly phony.
 
It’s sort of like this whole situation with China and the NBA. NBA players can speak freely and criticize whomever they want, but will shut up when doing so would affect their bank accounts. You can’t call Trump a “dictator” while also ignoring the actual dictatorial behavior and actions of Xi “Winnie the Pooh” Jinping.
 
You can’t lecture the 1% about “paying their fair share” when you give LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR OWN MONEY TO CHARITY! And yet, that’s precisely what Bernie Sanders does.
 
It’s disgustingly hypocritical and he should be called out on it and forced to address it. “Why do you talk about the 1% paying their ‘fair share’ when you yourself gave less than 1% of your money to charity? Would it be fair to say that you are not paying your ‘fair share’, then, by your own logic, Senator Sanders?” That’s the kind of question I would LOVE to hear from any reporter or journalist who actually had a spine, but we won’t, sadly.
 
Another student also came to Bernie’s defense, somewhat, by saying: “I don’t believe that the best way to help the poor is by giving to charity… The best way to support the poor is through systematic intervention – government intervention.”
 
Yeah, I believe the Venezuelan people, Chinese people, Russian people, Cuban people and any people who live under communist rule would want a word with you, fella.
 
How exactly does government intervention help the poor? By killing two infants after visiting a “wellness” clinic run by the government and having 24 other infants in “critical condition”? Because that’s what happened in communist Cuba recently.
 
By killing infant children despite the wishes of the parents just because the doctors deem further treatment to be “futile”? Because that’s what’s happening in Great Britain.
 
By having 90% of the population living in poverty? Because that’s what’s happening in Venezuela, according to a UN report.
 
How exactly does government intervention help anyone in anything? All we ever see, historically, is what a massive mistake it is to give the government so much control over people’s lives and livelihoods.
 
The government doesn’t lift people out of poverty; it does the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t create – it only takes and destroys.
 
But getting back on the topic of Bernie Sanders, it’s pretty obvious that he is a massive hypocrite. If the fact he owns three homes wasn’t enough of an indication of that reality, or the fact that he made over a million dollars in a year, or the fact that, as a result of being a millionaire, he went from saying millionaires shouldn’t get tax breaks in 2015 to attacking millionaires and billionaires in 2016 and ’17 and then attacking only billionaires in 2019, then surely, the fact that he only gives 1% of his money to charity ought to spell it out pretty clearly.
 
Unfortunately, most Bernie supporters will not care to find out how much (or little) Bernie gave to charity, only taking in the words he speaks and believing them to be gospel, or will outright not believe it when someone reveals how little he gives to charity, so it’s not like this is going to hurt his candidacy so much.
 
However, you and I know the truth about Bernie Sanders: he’s the very “greedy capitalist” he demonizes and claims to despise. Even more so, considering the average millionaire gives 5.6% of his money to charity and Bernie gives so little, even by that comparison.
 
And while spreading that news around might not hurt him very much, it’s rather clear that at least some people might be a bit more hesitant about Bernie in the future. Again, one of the students said that Bernie was what we “needed” before finding out how little he gave and went on to say she wasn’t much of a “Bernie fan”.
 
Yeah, one could argue she was just trying to save face, but who knows how many people might find this truth about him and rethink their support for Bernie? Again, it likely wouldn’t be a lot, given that a couple of people in the Campus Reform video itself (below) came to Bernie’s defense in one way or the other, but not everyone thinks the same way.
 
The first step is education. The Left has taken that over and is the biggest reason for any success over the last 50 years.
 
Romans 2:3
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”

Over the past couple of years, we have heard plenty of the supposedly anti-fascist group called Antifa using violence and intimidation to advance a political agenda. And despite that literally being the definition of terrorism, we have seen the mainstream media defend this domestic terrorist group time and time again, saying they are “angels” and lying about their repeated use of cement-laden milkshakes that they throw at people and cause harm to them.
 
However, as time has gone on, and particularly as one Antifa member tried to destroy and cause harm to ICE agents and vehicles a few weeks ago, Sens. Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy have proposed a resolution that would label the group as an official domestic terrorist organization. Definitely the right thing to do, as I have explained in the past, but Campus Reform wanted to get the input of some college students, specifically those attending George Mason University, regarding the actual labeling of the radical Leftist group as being a domestic terrorist organization.
 
When Cabot Phillips and his associate, Gabriel Nadales, whom used to be an Antifa member himself, explained the definition of terrorism to the students, all of them said they thought Antifa is a terrorist organization.
 
One student, when asked if Antifa was a terrorist organization under the aforementioned definition, said: “I think if they’re starting violence and things… at Trump’s rallies then I think so because people get hurt… people get killed. Those rallies can get very dangerous, so if people are going there with the purpose to incite violence, I think that’s definitely a terrorist organization.”
 
This is a sentiment that all the students shared: if the purpose of Antifa’s presence in any particular place is to intimidate or incite violence, or actually commit violent acts, then they definitely fall under the category of terrorist organization.
 
Obviously, this isn’t to say that all of these students are conservatives or Trump supporters by any means. One of them specifically mentioned how she doesn’t support Trump but that violence wasn’t the answer here, and another mentioned how Antifa reflects poorly on Leftists like himself. However, what this shows me is their ability to reason and understand when a group is doing the wrong thing, even if they politically agree with said group.
 
If the situations were reversed and there was a right-wing group that would intimidate people and incite violence or commit violent acts, there’s no doubt in my mind that virtually every common-sense conservative would disavow such a group. So I would certainly hope that young liberals such as some of the ones featured in the Campus Reform video (it’s unclear the political leanings of some others, but one made an interesting observation that I will cover later) would have the rational capacity to understand how Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization under the definition of terrorism.
 
We can disagree all day long about whether or not they are actually the ones who are fascist (they are, but the Left has brainwashed almost everyone into believing fascism is a right-wing ideology, when anything that relates to big government stems strictly from the Left), but there should really be no disagreement about Antifa being terrorists. The only ones who would disagree are the Antifa members themselves who will explode and try and intimidate or commit a violent act on someone who disagrees with them at any capacity and perhaps the MSM and the elected Left, who see Antifa as their military arm like the KKK once was.
 
But as far as these college students go, they demonstrate more common sense than I tend to see in the media and in Washington D.C., for the most part.
 
Now, one of them initially disagreed with the notion that they are a domestic terrorist organization, but upon having explained to him what the definition of terrorism was, he couldn’t help but to ultimately agree that if that is what Antifa is doing (which it is, very much so), then they are definitely a terrorist organization.
 
This is important to note because for just about every other student, Phillips or Nadales started their dialogue by defining what terrorism was, but not with this particular student. So if this student, having originally been ignorant about the definition of terrorism, didn’t think Antifa ought to be considered a domestic terrorist organization, then I just have to wonder what these other students, or even other people in general, would say about it being equally ignorant about the definition. Without the definition of terrorism, would people say that Antifa ought to be considered a terrorist organization?
 
But this only further expresses the need to educate the masses. When people don’t have correct information in front of them, they will take what deceitful people say as the truth and as fact. Man-made climate change is a huge example of this, despite all the evidence showing us that climate change has been a thing ever since the planet was created and there is nothing we are doing that affects it positively or negatively, people are convinced we are killing our planet. Granted, part of this is an emotional attachment to the idea of “saving the planet” and a fearful response to the idea that we might be responsible for the death of our planet and our children will have to live with the consequences, but when an objective and logical person gets the facts on this, they will tend to understand how much of a farce man-made climate change is.
 
But getting back to the students, I was pleasantly surprised to see them agree that, given the definition of terrorism, Antifa ought to be considered a domestic terrorist organization. Of course, there will be those who, despite knowing the definition, will contend that they shouldn’t be considered as such because that would essentially be putting them on a similar level to ISIS and al-Qaeda, but all I have to say to that is: “Do we really want to wait until they commit massive terrorist attacks with bombs and guns – wait until they start killing people – to call them terrorists? One of them literally tried to assault an ICE facility with a gun and Molotov cocktails, so it’s not like things are being de-escalated here.”
 
Most logical people will understand what ought to be considered a terrorist organization, and considering what Antifa has been doing fits the definition to a tee, I perhaps shouldn’t be so surprised to see these college students agreeing as to what their label ought to be.
 
But in any case, I promised I would get to a particular observation, and that’s what I will do now.
 
Towards the end of the video, the first student that had been featured went on to make the following remark: “Fascism. I mean, it’s not like we had a revolution. President Obama was President, we had an election, and now we have a new President. The government didn’t change. The whole concept of fascism, that’s ridiculous… it’s like comparing Trump to Hitler. It’s impolite, rude. It’s not the right words.”
 
This is rather interesting to me because it poses a direct challenge to what Antifa *claims* to stand for. Antifa insist that Trump is basically Hitler, that he is a fascist and every single person who disagrees with them in any way is also a fascist. But the student is right, it is ridiculous. Trump was elected President of the United States fair and square. Despite the two and a half years of investigations and allegations about Trump-Russia collusion, absolutely nothing turned up to even insinuate that that’s what happened. The American people elected Donald Trump. As he said, this wasn’t a revolution, at least in terms of an armed coup against the Obama administration. It was the exchanging of power from one Party to another, as it has happened TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY!
 
The way Antifa acts, it’s as though Trump came into power illegitimately and is preparing to exterminate millions of minorities, when nothing could be further from the truth. Antifa cries out that Trump is authoritarian and dictatorial, yet support candidates who are far-Left, to the point where they either are openly socialistic or communistic. No government on Earth has ever been more authoritarian than a government ruled by communism, because communism means that the government owns the means of production. In other words, the government owns just about everything and there is no private ownership of anything.
 
Antifa’s hypocrisy is, of course, their most tolerable aspect, considering how violent and extremist they are. There are plenty of hypocrites. The Left and much of the Republican Party are filled with them. Hypocrites, I can tolerate. Dislike heavily, but tolerate. People who would openly commit acts of terror against other people, for whatever cause, is something none of us should tolerate. And we shouldn’t wait until they start killing people to designate them as a domestic terrorist group, particularly considering they perfectly fit the definition of the word “terrorism”.
 
Major props go to Sens. Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy for standing up to such hateful terrorists. Here’s hoping their resolution succeeds.
 
Romans 2:9-11
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
 
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!

While this may not be very surprising, but still disappointing to see, socialism is being viewed more and more favorably by some people, and the kind of college major one goes into tends to have some sort of impact on it, according to a recent survey from College Pulse.
 
The survey of over 10,000 college students, so a massive sample size, asked students a series of questions relating to socialism and their views on it. All in all, they found that 39% of college students have a favorable view of socialism, 39% have an unfavorable view and 18% are not sure. With these couple of numbers alone, I can say an awful lot. But I will simply say that that is both considerably less than what I expected (referring to the number of students who hold a favorable view) but also far too high for my liking.
 
But what kind of major a student chooses will seemingly have some impact as to what view they hold on socialism. According to the poll, 78% of philosophy majors have a favorable view of socialism (not very surprising at all, considering Marx was a philosopher more than an economist). That number is followed by 64% of Anthropology majors who view socialism favorably, 58% of English majors, 58% of International Relations majors, 57% of Sociology majors and 57% of Music majors.
 
However, there are four majors listed in the survey who have a more unfavorable view of socialism, and they are majors that maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to find here: Law/Criminology, who hold a 43% unfavorable view on socialism (compared to only 28% who favor it) and 29% who are unsure; Economics, with 61% unfavorable view of socialism; Finance, with 63% unfavorable view of socialism and Accounting, with 61% unfavorable view of socialism (and 20% are unsure).
 
This really shouldn’t surprise anyone for a number of reasons. First, socialism is an economic system. Those studying economics ought to have a much better understanding of socialism in comparison to capitalism than those who are not studying economics. Second, those who study economics understand that socialism is an economic system. Before you say that that is the same as my first point, allow me to elaborate. What I mean by that is in reference to an article I wrote about a month ago in late June about how even those who say they are socialist also favor free market economics, signifying that those people don’t view socialism as an economic system but as a government system where the government takes care of people that need help.
 
Obviously, for those who understand socialism, it’s not at all about that. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production, so everything that is made and sold goes through them and they benefit from it. A system where the government owns every industry and regulates things like prices and how much an employee makes in a government-owned industry.
 
For those who do not view socialism as an economic system, such as those who do not study economics or finance, they view socialism as government being good to people who need help and thus have to be funded by those who are already well-to-do anyway like the upper class and even the middle class.
 
And one can’t really blame people for holding this belief. Socialism is sold as a great system where everyone and everything is equal, where one doesn’t have more than another but doesn’t have so little that they can’t live or survive at all. And often, it’s sold as the idea that the government can afford to give everyone everything for free, including health care and insurance, phones, vehicles (eco-friendly ones, of course) and even fancy high-rise apartment buildings (that are also eco-friendly, of course) and we are not supposed to even question how it can all happen or where the government is going to get the money to do it. “The rich will pay for it” is the standard answer given, even though the rich, even by confiscating everything they have to the point where they are penniless, still can’t afford to pay for even Medicare-for-All, let alone every other socialist wish-list item.
 
Those who think in terms of philosophy will look at minimum wage and think “people should be paid more than this” even though they are looking at the MINIMUM of people’s wages, not the average. They will look at someone like Donald Trump (before he was President) and think “no one should be able to live like that without government assistance, so they must have stolen from someone else!” (That is literally the belief of many people who support socialism, that someone is rich only because they stole from other people, not because they worked towards becoming rich).
 
I mean, take a look at one student that College Pulse quoted: “Capitalism is a failure of a system. If you weren’t born rich, you [aren’t] gonna be rich, so we should be focusing on helping our neighbors,” adding that those who defend capitalism defend “a system designed to keep them poor and exhausted.”
 
I don’t know what that kid’s major is, but I can almost guarantee it’s not Economics. What he says is adamantly untrue. Capitalism is the greatest economic system out there (not without its flaws, of course, but far better than what socialism does). People can, in contrast to what the kid was saying, become rich even if they weren’t born rich. Look at people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs and virtually every single person that has had a high-level position of pretty much any company. Virtually none of them were born rich. Gates, Jobs and other entrepreneurs began their businesses from their parents’ garage. Others began their businesses in their kitchens. Others rose up the corporate ladder to reach high positions in companies and make multiple hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year.
 
Just look at someone like Intel’s current CEO, Robert Swan. According to Business Insider, he makes over $4.6 million a year in salary and can earn more than $28 million in stocks. That’s more than most of us will make throughout our lifetimes, isn’t it? So being the CEO of a massive company will make you a lot of money (go figure) almost regardless of your background.
 
So to say that if you aren’t born rich you will not be rich in the future is a nonsensical and untrue statement. And as far as the comment about capitalism being a system “designed to keep them poor and exhausted”, it absolutely does not do that. Capitalism is designed to help people who have the ambition, drive and work skills and ethics to amass wealth to actually do so without a pesky government stealing from them. It’s getting harder and harder in America to do so only because of increasingly more socialistic policies being put into place (minimum wage, for example).
 
In a pure capitalistic system, people’s financial fates are largely in their hands and not in the hands of others. In a pure communist system, there is no such thing as private ownership of anything (and it’s a system that literally cannot work for any amount of time, as Lenin saw when his new Soviet Union was collapsing hard with that system, so he had to allow for some private ownership of land).
 
Those who study economics tend to understand how capitalism works (and will not say stupid things like what the aforementioned student said) and will understand how socialism works, which is why most tend to not hold socialism in a positive light. They understand that the hardships that the Soviet citizens had to endure, and what the Venezuelan citizens currently have to endure, are not because of anything apart from their own, heavily-flawed systems of economics that only serve to destroy wealth, not create it.
 
And while there are those who will say: “No! The U.S. is the reason Venezuela is like it is now,” All I have to say is: if America can do something like that to Venezuela, why couldn’t it do it to non-socialist countries? If America had this sort of power to affect other countries, why have we only seen socialist/communist countries fail? And if it has this sort of power, how did it get such power in the first place? How is our economy or our government or military as powerful as it is when we’ve only employed capitalism, a system that is “clearly flawed”, a “failure of a system” and “designed” to keep people poor?
 
These are the types of questions that, when asked to these people, will get you punched in the face because they have no good answer to it and they will sometimes (not always) resort to violence because you’ve exposed the irrationality of their arguments.
 
But fair questions they most certainly are and not questions that will likely ever be answered in a truthful and non-b.s. manner. Because the truth is that a system of economics designed to destroy wealth is not going to work. A country whose government taxes people more and more money, takes away their freedoms and rights, takes away their private property and funds itself through a pie that is slowly but surely diminishing is going to collapse at one point or another. It’s the reason Margaret Thatcher once said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
 
Those who study economics, finance, accounting, etc. (and history should also be on that list) will have a good understanding of what socialism actually is. Those who do not study it are more likely to fall for the bullcrap being spread around the media and college campuses.
 
It really is a shame that so many philosophy majors favor socialism, considering its once great ties to theology. Theology requires a very deep understanding of philosophy and logic (and considering philosophy literally means “love of knowledge”, that makes it even more disappointing because these students have no real knowledge of what they are talking about).
 
Still, I’m glad to see that there is at least SOME logic still applied in colleges around the country, even if those who study the major that most ought to be studying logic fail miserably at it.
 
Proverbs 2:2-5
“Making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge 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!

I believe I have written something similar in the past, or at least predicted something like this to happen, where I said that “white guilt” would get so bad that white people would get to the point where they are okay with segregating between themselves and minorities in various places, such as college graduations, etc.. Well, that’s exactly what some students in Columbia University have come to agree with.
 
While white guilt is not inherently mentioned, one can tell that that’s the only real reason for any person in this day and age to find segregation to be acceptable (and in the future, would likely be a requirement).
 
Ami Horowitz went to this college campus to ask the students about some universities segregating things like graduations, dorms and even gyms. (video below).
 
Within the campus, where there were a lot of white (mostly female) people, they all unanimously agreed that it would be okay to have a “separate but equal” system, as long as things were, indeed, equal.
 
This is the precise type of racial system that existed in America from the Emancipation Proclamation until the Civil Rights movement. And the Left has been so adamant about retaining racial inequalities that they’ve actually convinced some white people that segregation is good for basically the exact opposite reasons that they originally had.
 
Back when segregation was largely a thing, white Leftists considered the white race to be the superior, or at least more important race. While the system was “separate but equal”, one could hardly consider things to have been equal. There were separate drinking fountains, public restrooms, etc. and white business owners could refuse service to anyone who was coloured. So while in the eyes of the Constitution, black people were still considered equals and people, what with the 13th and 14th Amendments being in place, they were still considered as less than equal by racists.
 
But now, this sort of system seems to be coming back, but with white people being “considered” the inferior race, at least by white people themselves. Considering the idiotic and almost masochistic self-deprecation of having white guilt and believing oneself to have benefited from “white privilege”, these white people have within themselves an interesting victim mentality where they see themselves as having been an oppressor to people and wish to repent of that by castigating themselves in the public eye.
 
It’s insanely stupid, but that’s the reality for many ignorant white people (who, surprise, surprise, tend to lean Left).
 
Now, there was another student there who appeared to be Asian, or at least of Asian descent, who also agreed that it was okay to have such segregation. “I don’t see a problem with that. I want to be with people like me.”
 
This is important to note and remember down the line, so please keep this in mind as we go along.
 
In any case, that was the situation with mostly white people within the campus. But Ami didn’t stop there. He also went outside the campus, where he found a lot of black people, all of whom said it was dumb to segregate based on skin color, some even pointing out that it’s racist and discriminatory, even if that’s not the intention.
 
One black woman said: “Why? Are you going back in time? Why are you separating? We’re all together.” When asked if she thought it was racist to do that, she answered: “I would think.”
 
A black man said: “I don’t understand the logic there. It’s obviously terrible to separate people by race. Separating people by race at the gym? I don’t even understand that… So white people don’t get their feelings hurt when they get dunked on?”
 
That’s precisely right! Well, maybe not the joke about white people getting dunked on, but the part about it not being logical and obviously being a very bad thing to separate people by race. It’s really dumb and does nothing to help anyone, apart from white people who feel white guilt about perhaps even being around minorities and being reminded of such white guilt. Honestly, while the intention may not be racist, that is 100% racist.
 
Another young black man said: “I feel like that’s basically segregation. We should all be together.” Another man agreed: “I feel like that’s segregation and that shouldn’t be happening. Discrimination might not be the ultimate goal, but people take it that way… It’s all about social skills, and if you can’t converse with people that are not the same skin color as you, then there’s no reason for you to be social at all.”
 
And I have a few things to say about this. First of all, they felt that this is segregation and discrimination BECAUSE THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT IT IS! Separating people by race is segregation and discrimination!
 
Secondly, and lastly, remember the words of that one seemingly Asian student who said she wanted to be with people like her. That’s not necessarily a terrible thing and she can hang out with whomever she wants, but it is still a fairly dumb thing to believe. Like the young man said, if you can’t converse or interact with someone who is not your same skin color or race, there’s no point to you being social at all.
 
Going further than that, you would have a terrible time in the real world, where there are tons of people who are not going to be like you. Around 75% of the country is white. Most of your interactions will be with white people. If a non-white person finds trouble speaking to white people, that will be a massive detriment to them in life. And if a white person finds trouble speaking to a non-white person, the same thing can happen.
 
Now, I can understand if it is in our nature to want to be with people who are most like us. Personally, I’d rather have conservative, Christian friends. But for the most part in my life, about 95% of my friends have either not been into politics, been liberals or simply not been Christians. Considering I was living in Portland, Oregon when I was attending high school, it was unlikely for me to find very many conservative and/or Christian friends there. I did have one, but for the most part, I hung out with liberals or apolitical people in general.
 
Were I to have lived inside my own bubble where I could not withstand someone having a differing opinion from me, I would’ve found high school to be far tougher than it was.
 
But there is one huge distinction that needs to be made between me and someone like the Asian student. I don’t care one wit about someone’s skin color. The conversation the student had was about race, and she said she would want to be with people like her. While racism and discrimination may not have been what she intended, that is basically what she comes off as. A racist.
 
While I also prefer to be with people that are like me, that is in the sense of common beliefs and values. I would far prefer to marry a Christian girl than a non-Christian girl; a conservative girl than a non-conservative girl. However, her skin color is not even close to a problem.
 
But many MSM writers don’t agree. On the New York Times alone, I’ve seen a handful of articles from white people or even non-white people who have some sort of issue with the fact they are dating or are engaged to someone who is not their same skin color. It’s racist, but the truly sad part is that they don’t even consider that to be racist.
 
Racism only happens when a person is shallow enough to consider someone’s skin tone to be a major factor in something. When someone finds some sort of problem with the fact someone is GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from oneself. And I can’t say I’m surprised to see that this sort of problem exists pretty exclusively on the Left.
 
Whether it’s malicious shaming of someone else’s skin color or supposedly well-intended shaming of one’s own skin color, racism is racism. And it courses in the Left’s veins.
 
And do you want to know what truly seals the deal in this whole ordeal? Ami Horowitz didn’t just interview white-guilt-ridden people and dumbfounded African Americans. He also interviewed an Imperial Wizard from the Ku Klux Klan. And surprise, surprise, the KKK member agrees with the white students about segregation, though for different reasons.
 
It is truly interesting to see how the Left has managed to do a 180 on society’s view about racism. White Leftists went from admonishing black people and other minorities to blaming white people and having white people feel guilt over things white Leftists have done in the past to the point where white liberals once again feel segregation and “separate but equal” systems are a good thing, even if for different reasons.
 
This is why I so often call the Left evil and say they do the work of Satan. He is known as the “Great Deceiver”. And that moniker can also be applied to many on the Left.
 
What an odd thing this “progressive movement” appears to be, huh?
 
Acts 10:34-35
“So Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.”
 
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!

Campus Reform has come up with a lot of great videos in the past, but I think this might be one of their all-time best.
 
Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips went to Florida International University to ask various students whether they preferred socialism or capitalism. To no one’s shock, many of them said they preferred socialism.
 
After a brief overview of what socialism is: a system where the rich are forced to give much of their money to people who are not as rich, Cabot posited the idea of utilizing a socialist system for grades.
 
He asked the students who preferred socialism if they wanted a similar system in their schools and their grades, where those who had high GPAs were forced to give a little bit of their grades to those who had worse GPAs.
 
And this is where 1) these kids were exposed as hypocrites and 2) some of these kids were actually exposed to be a little bit capitalistic, or at least meritocratic in their way of thinking.
 
“I’m all for helping, but I wouldn’t give some of my points… I’ve lost a lot of sleep so I don’t know if that would be fair,” answered one student. Another said: “I, like, study all day for my grades.”
 
Interestingly enough, one acknowledged that it’d be “kind of hypocritical for me to say no.”
 
When many said they would not be willing to sacrifice their GPAs for someone else, Cabot asked what the difference was between not being willing to sacrifice grades and not being willing to sacrifice wealth to spread it around to those who do not have as much.
 
Funny enough, one of them said: “You study for your grades and grades also reflect how much time you’ve spent studying.”
 
Yeah, that’s not really a good answer at all. In fact, that’s not a difference between working for your grades and working for your money. Students work hard to earn good grades. When they don’t work hard, their grades tend to suffer. The same principle applies to earning money.
 
One of the students mentioned that the difference was that rich people often inherit their wealth or use the stock market to get wealthy, not work for it, and that may be true in some cases, but not for the most part.
 
People like Donald Trump, who did get a $1 million head start from his father, had to work hard to turn that million into a billion. People like Howard Schultz had to start from the bottom. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs built their companies in their parents’ garage. People like Warren Buffet, who yes is mostly an investor, had to work hard to ensure the companies he invested in were working optimally as chairman of the board of directors.
 
To my mind, the only wealthy people that I can think of that inherited their wealth but did not outright work to get it are London Tipton from Disney’s “Suite Life of Zack and Cody” and Yusuf Amir from Rockstar Games’ “Grand Theft Auto”. And both are works of fiction.
 
That’s not to say people don’t inherit wealth. The Rockefellers are wealthy largely because of the work of their ancestors, but it also takes work to maintain and grow that wealth.
 
In any case, all of the interviewed students said that they believe they had worked hard to earn their grades and did not think it would be fair for the college or any entity to take away some of their grades to give to someone else, even someone who might not work hard for their grades.
 
Which is important to note considering the fact that AOC’s Green New Deal included the phrase “unwilling to work”. No one wants to give something to someone that is able but unwilling to work for that very thing.
 
One student actually said something really smart as well: “Then there’d be no point to having a GPA because then if everyone has the same then there’s not a metric… is it fair for everyone to have the same outcome or the same opportunity? For me, having the same opportunity is what is fair, not the same outcome. Because if I work harder than you and I get a better result then it is only fair that I get a better grade or get a better opportunity than you.”
 
I don’t know if the kid knows this, but that is an almost perfect explanation as to what CAPITALISM is.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with the guy’s argument here. There’d be no point in having a GPA if everyone is forced to have the same grade or have equal grades. One student cannot be allowed to have a higher GPA than another so there’s no point to having a GPA in the first place. By the same token, if people are forced to share their money, there’s no point to having a currency in the first place, and certainly no point in working for your money.
 
If someone else is going to give some of their money to you and they are obligated by law to do so, there’s no point in you working or the other person working for their money, if they are just going to be forced to give it to someone else.
 
And as far as opportunity goes, there’s a good reason America is called “The Land of Opportunity”. While that title has not been used an awful lot as of late, it still remains true, at least in theory. Capitalism gives everyone a fair shot, a fair opportunity to earn their wealth. A particular outcome is never guaranteed, just the opportunity to strive for a particular outcome.
 
There’s no more unfair and unequal form of an economic system than socialism. It takes from the rich, who largely earned their money, to give to those who have not earned that money or worked far less to earn money.
 
If you work hard for your money, you should be able to keep it. That’s the basic principle of capitalism. That’s meritocracy. That’s why I mentioned that this video exposes students’ more capitalistic tendencies, even if they say they prefer socialism.
 
The only reason they say they prefer socialism is because they don’t know what it truly is. They think it’s a system where the government forces the rich to pay for everything and everything is awesome because the rich can afford everything. Only half of that is what socialism actually does. But it doesn’t stop at just the rich. While I don’t have much time to go into too much detail about this, I will simply say that socialism is a system that destroys wealth and as a result, the threshold for what is considered rich gets lowered to the point where upper-middle class are considered rich. And then, middle class. And then lower-middle class. And pretty soon, you have an ever-growing government that requires other people’s money, but the well runs dry. After that, all you have left is a self-imploding government that has long ceased to be equal or fair.

How do I know this? Venezuela.
 
These kids prefer socialism over capitalism because they buy into the idea that capitalism is horrible, even though they live under such a system that lets them have all the amenities they take for granted, and that socialism is the great equalizer.
 
The problem is that while it does make everyone equal, it makes them equally miserable. There is no socialist utopia. It has failed every time it has been tried. And just because there are countries that are still afloat that employ socialism right now doesn’t make it a good system. Soviet Russia was pretty powerful and rich under communism until its own system collapsed because it ate itself away.
 
And while some might try and explain that the Soviet Union only collapsed because the U.S. forced it into a space race, I ask: why didn’t the U.S. collapse as well, then? If the only reason as to why the Soviet Union collapsed is the fact that the two countries were trying to outspend each other then why didn’t the U.S. also collapse? Because the capitalist system of economics CREATES wealth, whereas communism/socialism destroys it.
 
What allowed the Soviet Union to last as long as it did is the fact that they had the population to suck the money out of and an emigration system that made it pretty much an impossibility for people to leave. Why do you think we so often heard stories of people trying or successfully defecting from the Soviet Union or any other communist nation? They aren’t allowed to leave, so they have to escape.
 
And you want to know something funny? It is outright impossible to have full-on communism/socialism. Lenin tried that and it almost completely sank the new Soviet Union, so he had to allow for some privatization, such as private farming, in order to keep the Soviet Union afloat.
 
In other words, SOME capitalism is necessary in order for even a communist nation to survive. China is another example of this.
 
That’s because socialism and communism are so self-destructive, it is outright impossible to implement a completely communist system without risking almost immediate implosion.
 
But returning to these kids, once again I have to make the argument that what is necessary is to educate these kids because even they have a little bit of a capitalist in them. They just don’t know it. And by educate, I don’t mean sending them to college. These are COLLEGE kids and are clearly being indoctrinated, since that’s all college does in this day and age.
 
One can only hope that these kids reflect on this scenario of socialism with GPAs and realize that it’s at least equally as unfair (no pun intended) if not more unfair when applied to money.
 
Proverbs 1:5
“Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance.”
 
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!

With all the articles I’ve written surrounding college students and their beliefs, many of which are Left-leaning, it’s kind of surprising to see that title at all.
 
Not to offend any college students, but given what the Left has been pushing and that most college students would either consider themselves socialists or at least liberal, what I am about to share with you is pretty fantastic, all things considered.
 
And if anything, what I am about to share with you proves at least two points that I often make: 1) it is important to educate and inform people and 2) the Left lives in their own little bubble where they think most people will go with whatever they want.
 
Of course, that second point should come with a little asterisk. Many people do say they like the Green New Deal, as all of these college students will be shown saying, but the first point of informing people lets us know that, once people have correct information, they will change their tune about some things.
 
Without further ado, let’s talk about the most recent Campus Reform video (below), where Cabot Phillips went to the University of Miami to ask what the students thought about AOC’s Green New Deal.
 
Unsurprisingly, all of them had positive things to say about it.
 
One said: “I like that it’s progressive, that it’s gonna push the world forward.” Another said: “Just from knowing who’s endorsing it and some other little things, it sounds great.”
 
One student, fully buying into the crap that we’re slowly killing ourselves with climate change, said: “If we didn’t do that, we’re going to be killing ourselves.”
 
Every student interviewed initially said that they approved of the Green New Deal.
 
And then, Cabot told them what’s actually in it.
 
He begins by saying that the plan includes eliminating all carbon emissions (coal, oil, natural gas) within 10 years.
 
Right off the bat, the first person he told that to said “I don’t agree with that. To be honest with you, I think we need those things to live.” Another realized that, while it might be a worthwhile endeavor (it’s not), she noted that “I do not think it is feasible in ten years… I don’t think that would be something that would be able to be done in such a short amount of time.”
 
So while she does seem to agree with the concept of eliminating those things, she at least recognizes that 10 years is not enough time to actually manage that, which is more than I can say for AOC.
 
Another student took a similar approach, believing 10 years to be too little time to manage doing that, but also looked into it in an economical perspective, recognizing that there’s a huge global market and economy based around these things that would definitely be severely affected by such a task.
 
The next item on the list that Phillips noted was the part where people who are unwilling to work would still be economically compensated, and this is where things made a right-turn… as in, they sounded more conservative.
 
Or, in other words, they sounded like they had common sense and did not want freeloaders.
 
One said: “If you’re not willing to contribute to society, I don’t think the people who are contributing should pay for you.”
 
THANK YOU! What is fair about people who are willing to work paying for those unwilling to work? Furthermore, while this is something they don’t actually cover in the video because it’s only 5 minutes long, but how could society possibly sustain itself if we have a safety net where those UNWILLING to work get money for not working? How would that work and how would that be sustainable?
 
Young people are definitely worried about things being sustainable (while being lied to that things are not currently sustainable), so they ought to worry about economic sustainability just as much as they do about environmental sustainability.
 
In any case, these students really impressed me by their stance on that issue in particular, with comments such as the one made by that guy, or things like: “I feel like it kind of sends a poor message of ‘you can just get away with not doing anything’… it’s kind of stupid.”
 
Again, thank you. It is insanely stupid, not just trying to think of the consequences of this, but also the actual concept behind it all. People should not be getting free stuff for being UNWILLING to do anything. It’s one thing to not actually be able to do anything. A safety net for such people is acceptable and moral, but for those UNWILLING to do anything, that goes against logic and common sense. Not to mention it goes against God. God wants us to work, not sit on our behinds doing nothing all day. People need to work to survive, and it’s actual madness to demand that working people pay for those who are unwilling to lift a finger to contribute to society and/or the economy.
 
The final item on the list of looney tunes plans to “save the planet” in the Green New Deal (and having recently watched Space Jam for the hundredth time, you are more likely to stretch out your arm like Jordan did against the Monstars than you are of paying for all of these things in the GND and have a functioning, let alone thriving, economy) is the plan to replace all air travel with high-speed rails going across the country (which really leaves Hawaii and Alaska in the dust, when you think about it).
 
As with the first item Phillips brought up, many went back to the impossibility of doing that within 10 years. Although, one did say that he doesn’t think air travel “should be eliminated altogether… it can be an option… The more options we have, the better.”
 
Cabot even raised the issue of who would pay for the multi-trillion dollar cost of the entire plan (which easily surpasses $100 trillion, given medicare-for-all on its own is almost half that) to one female student. She herself did not know who would be able to pay or how they would be able to pay for all of this, showing that it’s still a worthwhile question to ask people.
 
Finally, Cabot asked them, after learning of some of the details of the plan, if they changed their perception of the GND at all. They all changed their tune.
 
One said: “Sometimes you need to take extreme measures to save the environment, but I think that’s too extreme.”
 
I would disagree with the notion that we need to take extreme measures to “save” (save it from what?) the environment, but agree with her overall perception that such a plan is too extreme. Given that the U.S. is currently reducing its CO2 emissions and the other countries, most notably the ones in the Paris Climate accord, are actually increasing their CO2 emissions, I would just say the only measures we need to take are the ones the Trump administration’s EPA is currently taking.
 
But in any case, I am glad to see that these college students do have some common sense. And again, I raise the point that it’s uniquely important to give people correct information.
 
Before knowing anything about it, these kids supported the Green New Deal (precisely BECAUSE they didn’t know anything about it). Given who was supporting it, as one student noted, they liked it. They think AOC is cool because she’s young, attractive and a socialist and she truly wants to change things up in Washington, which is something people on both sides seem to want.
 
Of course, we disagree as to how to go about it, but that’s something many people want. The problem comes when people actually come to understand just what is being proposed by the Left. The Green New Deal, as I made sure to talk about in length in my previous article, is bad satire that the Left wants to make reality.
 
But given the response by COLLEGE STUDENTS, upon learning just what is actually in the plan, they came to disapprove or at least hesitate about the plan. The idea of trying to fight climate change might be a noble one to these kids, but at the very least they understand how ludicrous these proposals are, particularly given the timetable to do those things being so short.
 
Again, this is why it is so important to inform people. I’ve said this many times, but I’ll say it again: the only people that want socialism are those who don’t know what it is (ignorant or uninformed), those who are given information as to what it is but don’t think too much about it or can’t understand why it’s bad (stupid people) or those who know what it is and couldn’t care less because they are running for an office in the government (evil people).
 
I find that, for the most part, people are ignorant. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way at all. Being ignorant and being stupid are two different things, as I’ve said in the past. You can’t cure stupid, but you can cure ignorance with knowledge, facts, etc.
 
These kids were ignorant about the Green New Deal. They would be stupid if, after learning these things, they still agreed with it 100%. However, they proved to me and to those of you who are willing to watch the video that they are not stupid. They do not lack common sense. They just lack information, which can be easily fixed.
 
Of course, there is also the issue of being misinformed, but given the clown show that the AOC camp is giving us with their handling of the Green New Deal and what it contains, I don’t think there’s much chance that people will be easily misinformed about this.
 
Of course, the MSM will try, because that is all they ever seek to do, but this one should be fairly easy to counteract.
 
But returning to these kids, I thank God that people still have some sort of common sense. Enough that, when faced with these ridiculous proposals, they show everyone that the Left lives in a bubble of their own, where they think everyone agrees with them all the time and want what they want.
 
This tells me otherwise.
 
Proverbs 2:10
“For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.”
 
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!

​The government shutdown lasted for about five weeks, with little appearing to have come out of it except for the media blaming Trump for it, as usual, and the Democrats actually being to blame for it (I’ll explain momentarily).
 
The Democrat Party, the fake news media and college students all come to the agreement that the President was responsible and the one to blame for the government shutdown.
 
However, that train of thought changes once people start to learn some information that is not shared by the fake news media.
 
CampusReform’s Cabot Phillips went to George Mason University to ask some of the students who they blame for the then-current government shutdown.
 
As I stated previously, and completely unsurprisingly, the students all unanimously agreed that Trump was to blame for the shutdown.
 
So Phillips followed up that question with a pretty interesting and important one.
 
After asking the students who they blamed for the shutdown, Phillips asked them whether or not Democrats should agree on a compromise if Trump were to offer added protection for Dreamers, $800 million in funding for humanitarian aid and a slew of new judges to get immigration cases moving along faster.
 
Every single student that said they blamed Trump for the shutdown said that Democrats should compromise if Trump were to make that offer. Of course, that doesn’t matter at this point, but the kids thought they should’ve taken such a compromise.
 
What they didn’t know is that Trump actually DID make that offer earlier last week.
 
Suffice to say that the students were pretty surprised at that revelation.
 
One of the girls Cabot interviewed even went as far as to say she was “pleasantly surprised” that Trump offered that deal.
 
When asked if the Democrats should’ve taken Trump’s offer, all of them agreed that they should have, with one of them saying it was “the wrong move” for Pelosi to turn it down.
 
Then, Phillips asked them what the students had to say to Pelosi regarding this. One of them told Pelosi: “Compromise, compromise, compromise.”
 
Another said: “Just get the Democrats to, you know, budge…”
 
One girl said that Pelosi should “have a more open mind”, which is outright hilarious to me, considering how often the Left touts themselves as being open-minded and tolerant of everyone who is different from them, which is a complete fallacy.
 
Again, this doesn’t really matter at this point, but it’s good to see these kids appearing far more reasonable than the Democrats… or maybe that’s a bad thing, actually. These kids are more reasonable than the people in Washington. May God help us all.
 
Joking aside, by the end of the video (below), one student summarized the reason for the shutdown pretty well: “It’s the Democrats not giving in to the Republicans. So they don’t want to fund the wall at all. That’s why the shutdown is currently happening.”
 
I don’t know if that kid knows this, but that’s actually a pretty great summary of the situation that really should open his and anyone else’s eyes.
 
The kid realized for that moment that the ONLY reason the government was shut down for this long is not because of Trump being some sort of crybaby asking for money for a racist wall, but because Democrats are so petty they will turn down a good deal just so Trump doesn’t get his wall.
 
This much is emphasized when the Senate decided not to vote on bills that would open the government and Senator Tim Kaine, who would’ve been Hillary’s Vice President had she won, was visibly celebrating the fact that the government would continue to be shutdown, at least until Trump and Congress reached a deal to reopen it for three weeks (and I fully expect it to close again and Trump will have to declare a national emergency because the Democrats don’t want to negotiate on border security, open government or not).
 
But the fact that Tim Kaine celebrated an effort to reopen the government being killed certainly is interesting. I thought the Democrats really wanted the government to reopen and help those poor federal workers to actually be paid.
 
But when it comes to putting your money where their mouth is (yes, I’m making a joke about them taking your tax money), they refused to vote or pass anything that would get the government opened again.
 
Aside from the Tim Kaine celebration, something else that won’t be on the news is the fact that last week, there were multiple votes regarding back-pay for the “suffering” federal workers in the House.
 
According to Rep. Lee Zeldin, one January 17th, only 6 Democrats joined every single House GOP member on a bill to pay federal workers. The bill failed 195-222. On January 23rd, there was another vote on a similar bill but only 10 Dems joined Republicans on it and the bill failed 200-215. And on the following day, yet another bill that would pay fed workers was voted on, with only 13 Democrats joining Republicans, leading the bill to fail 200-214.
 
Literally all Republicans wanted to help these “suffering” and furloughed federal workers to get payed and the Democrats killed every bill that would've helped them. And then, they had the audacity to turn towards a CNN camera (because they are apparently everywhere there is a major story, if Roger Stone is any indication) and say Republicans were keeping the government shut down and were causing 800,000 federal workers to suffer WHEN IT’S LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE CASE IN REALITY!?
 
But these college students answering Phillips’ first question, the one about who was to blame for the shutdown, in the manner that they did does not surprise me in the least bit. It is yet another case of the media being disingenuous about who was to blame for the shutdown.
 
Trump offered them a good deal (that is honestly better for them than for him) and they were so fixated (and still are) on not letting Trump have his wall that they refused his offer. Nothing short of a promise of resignation as part of the deal would make the Democrats happy and even then, I could very well be wrong.
 
And not simply because Democrats are incapable of feeling joy being the soulless machines that they are.
 
But the fact remains that, upon learning some things and being given some good information, people can find out the truth. That kid at the end, while he might’ve later gone on to continue blaming Trump, did come to the reasonable conclusion that the only reason the government was shut down, particularly for as long as it was, is because Democrats refused to compromise.
 
And if more people come to the same conclusion, that is bad for the Democrats. Like I said, pretty much every single student in that video urged the Democrats to take the deal and thought it was a mistake for Pelosi to not go through with it.
 
This is the necessity of informing the public. There are a lot of people who are either uninformed or misinformed about things. These kids were largely uninformed (can’t blame them since the media they consume won’t tell them what Trump is doing unless it involves Russia or trolling people on Twitter) before Phillips let them know that the reasonable hypothetical offer from Trump was an actual offer from him.
 
So there are two major things to take away from this article:

1) it is uniquely important to give people the information necessary for them to arrive to their own conclusions. Like I said, the student at the end actually summarized the reason for the shutdown pretty well. Phillips didn’t tell him that, but gave him the tools to let him come to that conclusion.

2) the Democrats and the media are disgusting liars. This much we’ve known for a very long time, but it’s always important to note particularly when Democrats shed crocodile tears regarding the unpaid workers and proceed to kill any bill that would actually get them paid just so they can continue their sorrowful narrative.
 
There is a meme out there on the internet of this guy shooting someone on a couch, turning around and asking “why would someone do this?” as though he was not the reason for it (pretty great example right below).

This tends to be the case with pretty much everything they do, to be honest. You could literally replace the guy with AOC, have the victim as New Yorkers living in poverty and have the text say: “why would billionaires do this?”
 
There are a number of situations that would perfectly describe what the Left does with this meme, but getting back on track, this meme also shows what they were doing regarding the shutdown/federal workers not being paid.
 
They killed bills that would reopen the government or at least allow for federal workers to be paid, turn around and blame Trump and Republicans for the shutdown and workers not being paid.
 
It is the epitome of hypocrisy and outright deception. And if the CampusReform video is any indication, it’s working for a lot of people.
 
Those kids had NO idea that Trump offered a compromise to the Democrats who went on to reject it. This lack of information, or the outright consumption of misinformation, is the only reason Democrats are even capable of winning any election or even being relevant.
 
If everyone knew the truth about them, they’d know the Democrats were the ones who fought to keep their supposed “right” to own slaves, were split on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, founded the KKK and did not allow for a black person to attend a Democratic National Convention until the mid-1920s, their first official Democrat President, Andrew Jackson, went on to slaughter the Native Americans that they go on to claim were killed by simply white people, and they inspired Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws with their own segregation laws.
 
There is a TON more that I can point to as to why the Democrat Party is the worst party in world history, tied with any country’s communist party, but that would make this article as long as an entire series of volumes of books.
 
But what should largely be taken away from this article is the fact that it is imperative that we share the right kind of information. Of course, that’s nothing new, but it is always important to remember to do this.
 
The only reason Democrats are even close to being as prominent and powerful as they are is because they are workers of deceit just like Satan.
 
Romans 16:18
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
 
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!

In another great video (below) from Campus Reform, Cabot Phillips traveled to Georgia, specifically to Savannah College of Art and Design, where there exists a building named after conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
 
At this college, a number of students have signed a petition to rename the building and remove Clarence Thomas from any association with the building and/or the school.
 
Cabot Phillips wanted to understand just why the students were signing the petition and just why they felt compelled to rename the building to something that is not associated with Justice Clarence Thomas. And if you think any one of them came up with even a remotely decent explanation, you’d be horribly wrong.
 
You see, none of them could really come up with a solid answer. Many simply shrugged their shoulders, saying “I don’t know” or “I haven’t done enough research.” So they can’t even clumsily point to Thomas’ sexual assault allegations that came up very similarly to Kavanaugh’s allegations back when Thomas was a nominee to the Supreme Court.
 
Of course, even pointing that out brings with it a share of problems, but not even one of them even thought of it. They literally would say or signify that they simply don’t know why they are against him, they just are.
 
Cabot went further, asking them if there was anything the students could point to as the biggest reason for wanting to remove Thomas’ name from the building. Once again, they could not come up with anything… except for one particular student who gave perhaps the single stupidest answer I’ve heard in a long time.
 
A student wearing a New Orleans Saints beanie said the following: “[Thomas] is a historical figure… so is Hitler.”
 
No, there was nothing in between the things I quoted. There was nothing else that he said. That ellipsis was not to cut out unimportant bits and focus on the important ones, that ellipsis was to signify the time spent from one part of the quote to the other, similar to dialogue.
 
The kid’s literal argument was that Clarence Thomas is a historical figure, and because Hitler was also a historical figure, Thomas should have his name removed.
 
Now, I will cut the kid some slack. He does appear to be smiling when he said that, as if to know he just said some seriously dumb crap, but still. That is hardly an argument.
 
I’ve heard some ludicrous comparisons to Hitler before. Comparisons between, say, Trump and Hitler. And the reasons given are wrong and ignorant. People will say “they are both white supremacists” or other ridiculous things. But those kinds of comparisons, though erroneous, are pretty subjectively understandable. People consider the concept of a wall to be racist, even though it’s only meant to protect the border and the rule of law, without interjecting race. However, this comparison, though not directed at Trump, has to be the dumbest one I’ve ever heard.
 
People can say Trump is a Nazi all they want; they’d be wrong. But that gives them some subjective reason to not like him. This answer does not even touch on similarities of ideology (of which there are none because Hitler was a socialist and Thomas is a conservative). It does not even touch on similarities of policy (again, of which there are none). The argument is: Thomas is a historical figure. So is Hitler. Therefore, Thomas bad man.
 
There is literally no logical steps taken to go from not liking Thomas to comparing him to Hitler in this instance.
 
There is this little analogy I use sometimes: A farmer has to wake up very early every day, and he’s tired of it. He notices that whenever his rooster starts clucking in the morning, the sun would rise. As a result, he kills the rooster so that the sun will stop rising. Of course, the sun still rises anyway.
 
You see, there was no direct relationship between the rooster clucking and the sun rising. It’s just that the rooster clucks to signify the sun is about to rise, but the rooster does not make the sun rise.
 
But the farmer in that analogy at least noticed some sort of pattern, even if he was ultimately wrong. No cause-effect relationship. The student here draws no pattern. His line of thinking is: Thomas is a historical figure, as was Hitler, so that CLEARLY means Thomas must be like Hitler.
 
Never mind the fact that OBAMA is also a historical figure. Never mind that Bill and Hillary Clinton are historical figures (Bill more than Hillary, I’d say). Don’t pay attention to any of that.
 
Now, again, the kid was smiling, almost laughing, when he said that. I take that as he knows what he just said is super dumb, so I will try to cut him some slack, but I hope he at least learns the meaning of constructing an argument.
 
Of course, we could also argue about Thomas being a historical figure, but that’s not the point of my rebuking of the Saints fan.
 
That argument can hardly be called an argument. And that is where I will leave that since that is mostly a tangent for the main purpose of this article.
 
Returning to the overall video, there wasn’t a single person who could come up with a reason at all to remove Thomas’ name. One of the students tried to make it about politics, saying that the campus is liberal and that Thomas “degrades” that, which can also hardly be considered an argument. Cabot makes sure to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism, saying that liberals are supposed to be “open-minded and tolerant”. The student replies: “I guess, but I think that’s just a way to twist the concept of liberalism.”
 
Sweetheart (the student is a girl), what does the Left tend to do to appeal to people? Aside from trying to be hipster and cool to appeal to millennials, they point to the “racism” of the Republicans and the “inclusive” nature of the Left. The Left is the ones who say they are “open-minded and tolerant”. Cabot isn’t twisting it, the Left is.
 
We know very well that the Left is not tolerant and open-minded (as evidenced by the fact that this student herself essentially argues against Thomas’ name for the building because the college is liberal and he is conservative), so if anyone is twisting the concept of liberalism, it’s the Left.
 
Now, thankfully, not every single student interviewed by Cabot said they should rename it. One of the students brought up that just because you disagree with someone, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify their accomplishments. So not every student there is being completely indoctrinated, but there are a good number of them who are.
 
And make no mistake, this is prototypical indoctrination. Those students believe the things they believe not because they arrived at those conclusions by themselves, but because other people have taught them to believe those things.
 
This much is clear when they sign a petition to remove Clarence Thomas’ name from a school building but cannot come up with any particular reason as to why, apart from that’s just the way they feel.
 
This is what comes out of indoctrination. Mindless pawns useful to the Left. Clarence Thomas, to these kids, is bad. Not because they know anything about him, but because other people told them he’s bad and they have no sense for wishing to learn more about him to verify the claims made against him.
 
Then, these kids grow up to “believe all women” whenever a Leftist woman accuses a conservative man of something, whether or not it’s proven he did it.
 
But in this case, I arrive at a dilemma. What is better? Being uninformed or being misinformed? I, for one, believe it’s better to be uninformed. These kids, given their answers, are largely uninformed about Clarence Thomas. Again, they didn’t point to the sexual assault allegations, and the one kid that compared him to Hitler made a very stupid comparison that is not even up for debate as to why it’s wrong.
 
So I think these kids are in a better situation than someone who would bring up the aforementioned things or would make a more common comparison to Hitler (which is largely becoming stale, regardless of who you direct the comparison to), because such a person would be largely misinformed and remain grounded in their beliefs, whereas someone who is uninformed can be properly informed and could perhaps be persuaded to our side.
 
However much this may be the case here, I don’t know. But there is at least some level of hope for these kids to be properly informed and help them understand why it makes no sense to wish to rename the building currently named after Justice Thomas.
 
Here’s hoping that is the case, because it could just as easily go the other way, unfortunately. This is academia, after all. It’s long ceased to be a place of higher education. It’s now a place for higher indoctrination.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“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!