I have said this countless times: the Left doesn’t care about facts or evidence. They can see clearly that masks and lockdowns do not work and only hurt the states that they are supposed to be working for, but since the lockdowns let them be little dictators, they have no real interest in doing the right thing.
Look at California, for example. Despite all the grandstanding about wanting to “flatten the curve” and “stopping the spread of COVID-19” (and, by the way, don’t overlook the fact that they moved the goalposts from “slowing” the spread to “stopping” the spread, which is an impossible task to retain power), the state has the most Chinese coronavirus cases by far of any state, easily producing 17% of the nation’s infections.
California is the most populous state, at nearly 40 million people living there, but it also has 1.4 million active cases, which is roughly 3.5% of the population. The state with the second highest tally is Florida, which has 609,000 active cases out of a population of 21.9 million, or 2.7% of its population. Both populous states have active case percentages relative to population that are fairly close to one another, and yet, have completely different approaches to dealing with the virus.
MultiState has a ranking for how open each state is, and rank Alaska as the most open state, though it’s tied with Florida and South Dakota (openness scores of “96” each, so a virtual tie). California, like I said, has the strictest measures and thus, ranks at number 50 for openness out of 50 states in the Union.
Furthermore, according to Foundation for Economic Education, “on a per capita basis, Californian’s (sic) active cases are about 30 percent higher than Florida, which has virtually no restrictions in place.”
Despite the demonstrable fact that lockdowns don’t work, many governors, both Republican and Democrat (though, in some cases, they can just be referred to as “The Party”), choose to repeatedly implement stricter and stricter lockdown measures.
The FEE theorizes that part of the reason as to why is for politicians’ own ability of self-preservation. They want to appear in-charge and like they are doing something to take the virus seriously, even if they leave countless bodies along the way. Gov. Cuomo signed an executive order on March 25, 2020, which was basically a death sentence for countless old people in retirement and nursing homes, but because he was posturing as taking the virus seriously (and because he’s a Democrat, so the media has no real reason to be harsh with him), he was considered to be a good enough leader as to receive awards for how he has dealt with the virus.
He even believed his own hype so much that he wrote a book about what a good job he had done… right before New York saw another surge in cases.
That theory about self-preservation makes sense when you consider some spineless Republican governors being so willing to strip people’s civil liberties and rights so that they appear to be “taking the virus seriously.” Gov. Kristy Noem and Gov. Ron DeSantis received plenty of flack from both the media and politicians for choosing liberty over tyranny, being painted as “violent” governors who would doom their states.
Nearly a year since the pandemic began, and anyone with a working brain would far prefer to live in South Dakota or Florida than in California or New York.
Freedom-loving governors understand the science behind the Chinese coronavirus and understand that lockdowns have little to no effect on the spread and effectiveness of the virus. They understand that much of the world has been bamboozled by the “experts” who have profited tremendously from this pandemic. Seriously, the Chinese coronavirus is the single best thing to ever happen to people like Fauci, Birx, Tedros, and (though he’s not an expert) Xi Jinping. It’s the best thing to ever happen to socialistic politicians whom have dreamed for the ability to rule people’s lives. It’s the best thing to ever happen to the uberwealthy like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc.
Their good fortune comes from the average Joe’s suffering. Your misery is their profit.
It’s funny, really. Coming from a socialistic family, my mother was often told that “the rich stole from the poor to get their wealth.” In a capitalistic society, that is obviously baloney. The rich are often the ones who innovate and put things into markets which people want to buy in great demand. But in a socialistic society, what they say is 100% true. Though they initially amassed wealth by other means, people like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc. have only gotten wealthier BECAUSE of the unconstitutional lockdowns which have snuffed out smaller businesses.
Your local mom and pop shop isn’t allowed to reopen, but the big boys in the grocery industry like Walmart, Target, Publix, etc. have always been allowed to operate, even if with some restrictions.
A small cake shop can’t operate, but a massive Walmart with its own dessert section is allowed to function with almost no issues.
They may have gotten their wealth by selling marketable goods (except for Zuckerberg who was almost certainly taking money from Soros), but they have grown their wealth exponentially in the last year solely because of the monopolies which they own and because of the inability for anyone to even LEGALLY compete with them.
Our society is quickly becoming feudalistic, with certain rights and privileges being exclusively owned by the ruling class. The death of small businesses and of the middle class are the best things that could happen to the wealthy and the powerful, so what reason do heartless politicians have to reopen sincerely?
We were initially told that we would be locked down for 15 days. It’s been nearly a year.
We were initially told we had to “flatten the curve”. It was flattened many times for many states, some of which chose to not reopen at any capacity.
We were initially told to “slow the spread of the virus”. It was then changed to “stop the spread of the virus” which is an impossible task unless you planned to lock up every single person in their homes forever.
We were initially told that we’d be able to go back to normal once we had vaccines widely available. We have numerous vaccines widely available (I don’t trust them, but we have them) and many states have few plans to reopen. Fauci even moved those goal posts, saying that even with the vaccines, we still needed to adhere to the guidelines of mask-wearing and social distancing.
If those guidelines still have to be followed after people take the vaccine, then what’s the point of the vaccine? It’s supposed to be immunization which ought to last at least a good few years (and yes, I think flu shots are a scam if you have to take them every freaking year). So if you’re immune, why would you still need to wear a mask and social distance?
“Masks are supposed to protect others, not ourselves,” the liberal will argue. But there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread. So if I show no symptoms (and I very well shouldn’t if I have taken the vaccine and it’s effective), then why should I keep wearing a mask? I wouldn’t be spreading anything to anyone else. And even assuming every single person in the country takes the vaccine, I can guarantee you those “guidelines” will remain in place.
What they intend to do with this pandemic is similar to what the warhawks have done with the never-ending wars: provide b.s. reasons to remain in the Middle East and to continue fighting. The b.s. reasons they give for continuing the never-ending wars is that we are “keeping our enemies at bay” or “we are bringing democracy to those places” or “we are fighting there so that they don’t bring the fight to our shores”, etc. etc.
The b.s. reasons they give for keeping these measures are “to keep people safe” and “to ensure that more people don’t die from this deadly virus.” The virus is barely deadly and has demonstrably been overcounted in death tolls (remember, only 6% of the total died FROM the virus. The others died with it, and the tally counts people who died from gunshot wounds and falling from great heights).
The people who now have power see a great opportunity with this pandemic. So long as they can continue selling the idea that they are doing things for “the greater good”, they can continue to try and convince their people to not resist against them. After all, anyone who would challenge those who are “just trying to keep people safe” must be a terrorist and insurrectionist, right?
The good news is that we outnumber them greatly. There will be a breaking point for them. You can only rule people so harshly for so long before you get serious pushback. I just hope the military is not so infested with Leftists that it would gleefully turn against the citizens of this nation.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
As I have said in a previous article, I am no longer of the belief that President Trump will be serving a second term beginning on January 20th, as a result of an election which was stolen by the establishment and the usual safeguards against election theft were utterly ignored.
We will be getting an illegitimate and unconstitutional Biden/Harris administration (we’ll see if they Old Yeller Old Man Joe), but we’ll be getting such an administration nonetheless. And though they will point to the Capitol Riot as a reason for their future authoritarian actions, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have done the things they are calling for in any case. They hate us and want to destroy us, and are just using that event (which was nowhere near as destructive or insurrectionist as the Antifa/BLM riots of last year) as an excuse for their tyranny.
However, there is good news to be had: there will always be bright days ahead.
Not likely in the short-term future, and such days will likely be very dark for our nation and our people, but let me tell you of another dark period in our nation’s history which has largely gone forgotten but which will likely seem similar under the next administration.
Let me tell you about the illegal, unconstitutional, and “Reign of Terror”-like Palmer Raids of the Wilson administration.
The Foundation for Economic Education is my main source here, and they have a great article that goes into more detail regarding this event than I will, so it’s worth to check them out. Lawrence W. Reed wrote, back in January of 2020, about how 100 years have passed (obviously, now 101) since one of the biggest infringements of people’s civil liberties and rights: the Palmer Raids.
Reed begins: “Exactly a hundred years ago this morning – on January 3, 1920 – Americans woke up to discover just how little their own government regarded the cherished Bill of Rights. During the night, some 4,000 of their fellow citizens were rounded up and jailed for what amounted, in most cases, to no good reason at all and no due process, either.”
Some contextual information is obviously necessary to understand what we are talking about here. The Palmer Raids, illegal and unconstitutional police raids, are named after their instigator, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, President Woodrow Wilson’s last Attorney General. The event in question, in Reed’s own words, “constituted a horrific, shameful episode in American history, one of the lowest moments for liberty since King George III quartered troops in private homes.”
The targets, ironically, were radicals and Leftists who were deemed by the Wilson administration to be hostile to “American values.” I say this is ironic for a number of reasons. Primarily, Wilson was, himself, a Leftist Democrat. Wilson was the first president to have movies shown in the White House, and shamefully, the first such film ever shown was a pro-KKK film named “The Birth of a Nation”, originally called “The Clansman.” He was an actual racist who sought to segregate federal government as much as he could and held Old Southern values, obviously.
I am not sure just how different he was from these “radicals” and “Leftists” whom his administration targeted, but his very actions demonstrate his own Leftist and authoritarian values.
It’s worth pointing out that other former presidents, even prior to Wilson, had done some damage to people’s civil liberties and Constitutional rights. John Adams, for example, himself a founding patriot and our nation’s second president (so it took two presidents for tyranny to rear its ugly head in this country), got Congress, led by Adams’ Federalist Party, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it easier for the government to deport foreigners, made it harder for new immigrants to vote (so far, so good) and made it so that fines and imprisonment could be handed out to those who “write, print, utter, or publish… any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government, according to USHistory.org.
Now, in the era of fake news which has been meant to utterly derail and undermine the Trump administration, one might be more open to considering such an act as being good, but the problem comes in the fact that the very government passing such a law is the one which gets to determine the definition of “false, scandalous and malicious writing.” For example, more than 20 Democratic-Republican newspaper editors were arrested and, some, imprisoned. One prominent example of those imprisoned by this law was Vermont Representative Matthew Lyon, who wrote a letter critical of Adams’ “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice.”
So basically, imagine if fake news media journalists could be imprisoned for merely calling Trump a racist, or “worse than Hitler.” While I think it’s obscene that they would so callously call him those things, they have First Amendment rights to say those things, as well they should. Just like we have First Amendment rights to call Biden a racist and sex offender, particularly if there is proof of that.
And President Lincoln suspended political opponents’ habeas corpus rights during the Civil War.
So it wasn’t exactly unprecedented for Wilson to be a violator of civil liberties and rights, but that doesn’t mean what he did was right at any capacity. Further, his legacy can be felt even to today, seeing as his administration oversaw (and endorsed) the 16th and 17th amendments to the Constitution, which made it so that the federal government would begin taxing people’s personal income, and made it so that U.S. Senators would be elected through popular vote instead of appointed by state legislatures similar to the president, respectively. Also, he created the Federal Reserve, and I don’t have to tell you how that one is felt today.
Wilson’s administration also created the Committee on Public Information (CPI), which was basically just a department of propaganda to try and convince Americans that The Great War was right and just and necessary for the preservation of democracy. “Two months later,” writes Reed, “under intense pressure from the White House, Congress passed the Espionage Act. Any person who made ‘false reports or false statements with intent to interfere’ with the official war effort could be punished with 20 years in jail or a fine of $10,000 (at least a quarter-million in today’s dollars), or both. It was amended in May 1918 by the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to write or speak anything ‘disloyal or abusive’ about the government, the Constitution, the flag, or a US military uniform.”
Wilson’s then-Attorney General, Thomas Watt Gregory, also did something similar to what de Blasio encouraged New Yorkers to do during the pandemic: spy and snitch on each other. The Justice Department would receive thousands of accusations of “disloyalty” every single day.
This, for those who are relatively familiar with French history, is reminiscent of one of the aspects of the Reign of Terror which made it as awful as it was. The French citizens were encouraged by the Jacobins to spy on one another and report any acts or beliefs deemed to be “counter-revolutionary.” Any expression of sympathy for King Louis XVI or any critique of the revolutionaries, particularly of Robespierre, were deemed as crimes punishable by guillotine.
While it wasn’t quite that bad for Americans a hundred years ago, it was still pretty awful nonetheless. What’s more, the Post Office would destroy certain mail instead of delivering it and began banning magazines which would “embarrass” the government. According to Reed: “An issue of one periodical was outlawed for no more reason than it suggested the war be paid for by taxes instead of loans.”
Anything that was deemed critical of American allies like France or Britain was also banned, including a movie about the Revolutionary War wherein the British were seen as the bad guys… because of course they were back then, but by the time of the war, the British were allies and Wilson didn’t want any critique of them.
“Of the roughly 2,000 people prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, not a single one of them was a German spy. They were all Americans whose thoughts or deeds (almost none of them violent) ran counter to those of the man in the big White House. Hundreds were deported after minimal due process even though they were neither illegal immigrants nor convicted criminals.”
So all those laws did was infringe on people’s free speech rights as well as due process rights and they did nothing to deter spying and disinformation from the Germans, who would be defeated a little more than a year and a half after the United States “entered” the war (we officially entered the war in April of 1917 but wouldn’t even land in Europe and enter combat until months later).
After the end of World War I, Wilson’s next big bad enemy of American democracy was what became known as the “Red Scare.” And while I agree that communism is, indeed, antithetical and a threat to the American REPUBLIC, Wilson himself was also a big threat to it as he had proven throughout his two (potentially almost three, had he been healthier) terms as president.
In March of 1919, Wilson appointed a new Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, who was, in Wilson’s own words: “young, militant, progressive and fearless.” Interesting how “progressive” was used even by Leftists back then and how that word was used in its exact opposite intention. I cannot say that there was anything about Wilson’s administration that was progressive in the sense that it helped pave the way forward in a positive sense, and it only led to regression in terms of people’s civil liberties. There is a reason Reed calls back on King George III’s quartering of troops in people’s homes when discussing this subject.
At any rate, actually getting to the raids now, the first of the two biggest raids happened on November 7th. 1919, where Palmer and his newly appointed deputy, J. Edgar Hoover, spearheaded the operation wherein “federal agents scooped up hundreds of alleged radicals, subversives, communists, anarchists, and ‘undesirable’ but legal immigrants in 12 cities – some 650 in New York City alone. Beatings, even in police stations, were not uncommon,” wrote Reed.
January 2nd, 1920 was the second of the major raids, the largest and most aggressive one yet, which Reed calls “a night of terror: about 4,000 arrests across 23 states, often without legitimate search warrants and with the arrestees frequently tossed into makeshift jails in substandard conditions.”
Interestingly enough, The Washington Post had an opinion piece, where one person wrote: “There is no time to waste on hairsplitting over infringement of liberties.” So the WaPo was not exactly a friend of freedom even a hundred years ago.
Now, you might be asking roughly why I’m talking about this, particularly to this length. Well, there is no doubt that the Left is as authoritarian today as they were back then and will usurp our liberties and rights for whatever cockamamie reason they give such as “social justice” or whatever else to try and justify it. Wilson used the war and the rise of the Soviet Union as the reason for being an authoritarian himself, and the Left today will use Trump, Trumpism and the Capitol riot as the reason for being authoritarians in our near future.
Already, there are calls from some on the Left to designate MAGA rallies as terrorist gatherings. They will use things like the Patriot Act (another infringement on people’s freedoms, courtesy of George W. Bush) to destroy as many of our liberties as possible, claiming to be fighting “domestic terrorism” (all the while they are openly supportive of Antifa and BLM terrorist actions).
Despite the dark days that are most likely in our future, it’s worth mentioning, and a bit of a sigh of relief, that bright days are what lay ahead of dark ones. Despite the actions of Wilson, America still saw times of great prosperity, such as under Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump. There is no denying that Wilson eroded many liberties of Americans, which for the most part, have not been undone by any future administration, but the pursuit of liberty is always a worthwhile endeavor. It’s unlikely we will ever see an America which our founders envisioned (and, to an extent, some of the founders even had a hand in ensuring that, given Adams’ actions), at least on this Earth.
The Founders likely envisioned what was the closest thing to Heaven on Earth back then, but Man’s evil nature is what prevented them from being able to fulfil it, and it’s what prevents us from being able to get close to it.
But despite what is likely ahead of us, look forward to the future which will come after it. Apart from Christ’s, no victory is permanent. The Left will taste defeat again sooner than they expect.
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
It might be cliched to compare this stuff to George Orwell’s “1984”, but one can hardly avoid making the comparisons, seeing as the Left has taken that book as an instruction manual for how to operate. But it’s not just the elected Left which employs this junk. Leftists in the private sector and in academia also operate much like Big Brother, in some cases even issuing “newspeak” whenever they see fit.
This is what the University of Michigan has done recently, and this is far from the only time I have talked about that craphole of an “institute for higher learning.” In the past, they have both had black students self-segregate and had faculty organizing a “whites-only” café. Now, their Ministry of Truth, the “Words Matter Task Force”, has issued a list of “inclusive language” terms for the purposes of replacing current terms they deem “offensive.”
The following image shows this list:
There is plenty here for me to go over, but I will only talk about a few of them, so as to not make this article needlessly long.
First, of course, there is the replacing of “man” and “men”, as well as “girl/gal,” and “boy/guy.” Because these people want to do away with the biological fact that there are only two genders, they replace those natural words with “people” and “person” or just the man or woman’s name. Nothing different from what we have seen before, but it’s egregious that I am this accustomed to the destruction of objective fact for the purposes of wokeism.
Then, there are things like “blacklist/whitelist” and “black-and-white thinking”, which I assume are only on this list because they include the colors “black” and “white”. The thing is that neither of those terms are in reference to race. “Blacklist” comes from the 1610s, and was in reference to disgrace, censure or punishment. In 1884, it was largely used by employers to make lists of workers they considered to be troublesome, usually due to union activity. It has nothing to do with black people in general, and “whitelist” has nothing to do with white people.
The same applies to “black-and-white thinking”. That phrase is about thinking in absolute extremes, such as thinking that one is “absolutely perfect and flawless” or “is the devil in the flesh.” It’s usually used in the context of people saying “reality isn’t so black-and-white,” meaning that it’s not as clear-cut as someone is alleging it is. For example, most fairy tales and stories are pretty black and white, because you know who the good guys are – and such people always do good things – and who the bad guys are – and such people always do bad things. Again, nothing to do with race.
Not that it matters, of course. Leftists often think along superficial lines, and see the terms “black” and “white” always in the context of race and not the colors themselves, even if their actual context is not within race.
The term “brown bag” is likely also a result of this line of thinking. They ban it because they think of brown people when they think of a brown bag (which tells you how racist these people are), instead of the fact that the phrase “brown bag” is in reference to lunch and how lunch is often times carried in a paper bag which happens to be brown. Maybe lunch should now be carried in silver plastic bags so as to not offend these snowflakes, but then they would whine at you for “killing the planet,” so you really can’t win with these people.
There is also the term “grandfathered”, which is seemingly due to the grandfather clause used in the Jim Crow south to give white people an advantage when voting over black people, but there is a very clear issue with this line of thinking: if that term can be connected with that clause, then couldn’t the actual familial relationship of a grandfather – and thus, the concept of a grandfather – also be problematic?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left started pushing for that idea – that grandfathers are problematic – largely because of both the gender of grandfathers and the age (the Left hates old people, as evidenced by Cuomo and Whitmer’s acts against them in their states).
Later on, there is also the terms “honey, sweetheart, sweetie”, possibly because the Left has no idea of the concept of love and seemingly hate pet names.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with “honey” or “sweetheart”, etc.? Sassy black women and gay men tend to mock those they disagree with by saying “oh, honey,” so wouldn’t this list be an attempt at limiting their vocabulary?
By the same token, why is “long time, no see” problematic? Its origin is in Chinese Pidgin English, supposedly from a short story in 1892 where a Chinese girl, during a conversation with someone, said “I think I go see my mamma today. Long time no see.” Is it problematic because of its origin or because of the kind of broken English you sometimes stereotypically hear from Chinese migrants? I’m willing to bet it’s for that reason, but frankly, no one means any sort of offense by saying it.
Even I did not know of its Chinese English origins until I looked it up, so I doubt most people would know about it and willingly be trying to mock Chinese migrants with it. Either way, it’s ridiculous that the University of Michigan would be banning these words and phrases. I guess they want to cull even phrases originated by migrants, much like they have culled the accomplishments of black people by getting rid of Aunt Jemima from the company’s products.
There is also the term “native” which is rather funny for me to see here. I can only imagine ignorant college students attacking Christopher Columbus for “killing” the Built-in Americans, or the Innate Americans. They clearly were largely talking about things, and not the race of Native Americans, but they were making this change because of the race, not in spite of it, so I can’t help but make that funny little connection. In order to not offend Native Americans, these people thought it would be wise to call other things which are not in relation to Native Americans (which, by the way, is a term created by the Left to replace the word “Indians” or “Indian Americans”, so they are trying to replace a term that THEY created to REPLACE ANOTHER TERM) because they thought it would offend those people.
Makes sense, considering their relentless attack on the Washington Redskins, who ultimately caved and embarrassingly are comfortable with having the temporary name of “Washington Football Team,” even though the vast majority of Native Americans did not have an issue with the name to begin with. Woke people do “good” things for minorities, even if the minorities don’t want those things.
Finally, there is the term “picnic”, which is also a bit of a headscratcher as to why it’s here. The UK Daily Mail suggests that the reason that term is here is because of “false suggestions on the internet that it originates from the racist, extrajudicial killings of African Americans.”
So these apparently “anti-racist” people chose the term “picnic” because it kind of sounds like “pick a n-word?” The term’s actual etymology is 17th century France, where the word “pique-nique” is used to describe social gatherings in which people contribute some amount of food… like a typical English picnic, in other words.
These Leftists really can’t help but see race in everything, even the most mundane and innocent of things like “picnic” just because, to the mind of a Leftist, it sounds like “pick a n-word” for the purposes of lynching them. Before today, I had never made that kind of connection, but then again, I’m not an insane Leftist who is outright conspiratorial about the meaning and etymology of certain words and phrases.
Maybe we should also ban the words “black” and “white” outright, despite them simply being colors, because they can be used in relation to race. Maybe we should also ban the word “person” because it has “son” in it. Maybe we should ban the word “window” because it has “win” in it and that promotes a spirit of competition and capitalism.
Who knows what other “newspeak” these Leftists will come up with to further choke freedom of speech? And you know that that’s the end goal. The UK Daily Mail noted that “It’s not clear if there will be any penalties for staff who don’t abide by the recommendations.” However, that’s hardly the point. The point isn’t to penalize staff for not using it – it’s to shift the entire culture to ensure that they are used and that punishments will be dealt by people, not official authorities.
For example, it’s not outright necessary to mandate the use of masks everywhere, because those who wear masks will, at least in some cases, outright yell at those not wearing masks and shame them into wearing one. Such people are not concerned with the inefficiencies of masks – matter of fact, they will 100% believe that masks work because that’s what “the experts” and “science” are saying, and anyone who doesn’t listen to them is an “ignorant science denier” at best and a “dangerous, lunatic serial killer” at worst.
Seriously, these lunatics will get right into people’s faces to yell at them to social distance and wear a mask. They carry measuring tape with them to make sure people stay 6ft apart (and such measurements can only be taken by breaking that guideline themselves, but they will never acknowledge that hypocrisy).
Maybe the university will issue punishments for members of their staff, and maybe even their students, for not adjusting to their “newspeak”, but that’s hardly the long-term goal. The purpose of this is to shift an entire culture towards doling out the punishments themselves, leading people to snitch on each other not unlike in “1984”.
As outright funny as it is to find some of the items on that list, what’s not funny is the blatant attempt at censorship by these groups of people. What’s worse is their push for making it so normal and “righteous” that they lead normal people themselves to be the gatekeepers and guardians of these rules.
Big Brother was only as powerful as it was because it managed to convince just about their entire populace to accept their new rules as being “just” and “fair” and “good”. The period before the “revolution” is regarded, even by those who question BB, as having been filled with injustice and unfairness. And those who do question BB are treated as outright traitors by the people.
Similarly, the Left’s aim is to convince just about the entire populace to accept their new rules, which they claim are “just” and “fair” and “good,” and are in direct opposition to this supposed period of “injustice” and “unfairness.”
Again, it may be cliched to compare the current situation with Orwell’s work, but one can hardly avoid doing so when they see these very things happening. I see the Left attempting to become Big Brother, doing many of the same things BB did, so I can’t help but note the parallels here.
We are obviously not quite there yet, as my own opposition to this sort of Big Brother is allowed to exist and I am not being sent to a secretive reeducation facility to “admit” to my “crimes” and to make me “love” Big Brother “again”. But there are a lot of similarities here with that work of fiction, which I can clearly see some people want to bring into reality.
Here’s hoping we can put a stop to all of that before it’s too late.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
Frankly, I originally did not intend to be writing about the useless crap our government wastes our money on so soon after the omnibus bill (which President Trump thankfully vetoed because he is a real patriot), but Sen. Rand Paul’s annual report on government waste was released around the same time of the release of that article, and I kind of want to make this an annual series (for as long as either the government keeps wasting money or I am alive, with the latter being more likely).
And similar to last year’s report, I will talk about only a few things on this report, though the report itself is utterly chockful of other wasteful spending that I would like to get to but doing so would make this article unnecessarily lengthy.
So let’s begin with some of the asinine crap that the government wasted our tax-payer dollars on:
There is a real and sick push out there on the Left to force you into subsistence all for the sake of “saving the planet” from “man-made climate change.” You, the peasant, are responsible for killing the planet, which involves eating meat and stuff like that, so you must be willing to eat bugs like an animal or like people in extremely poor African nations in order to rectify that. Meanwhile, the elites get to enjoy bigger and bigger supplies of rich meat and other delicacies, and will even justify their better lifestyle as them “fighting for the planet,” by telling you how to live a “greener” lifestyle. It’s utter bullcrap, but they will see just how far they can push us on this and how much we are willing to swallow (pun kind of intended).
2. $36M to find out why stress makes hair turn gray.
A Harvard study from January of 2020 shows that it’s the fight-or-flight response triggered under stress that can lead to permanent changes in stem cells that influence the hair’s color. I can only assume that at least some of the money spent by the government went to Harvard in researching this, but I have to ask: why? Why waste money on this? If scientists have the curiosity to find this stuff out, fair enough, but why do taxpayers have to pay for this research?
3. $6.9M using cancer research money for the purposes of creating… a “smart toilet.”
Twitter is already a craphole, so I suppose that the government wanted to see if they could interact in the septic social media while actually taking a crap. But this one is particularly special. You see, this is not only extremely asinine, as hardly anyone needs a “smart toilet”, whatever that means, but this is also rather insulting and repulsive not merely due to the subject matter but due to the reappropriation of funds used for such a purpose. Taking money from cancer research to create a “smart toilet” is what a crap government does (pun very much intended that time), and one that could hardly care about the people suffering from the horrible disease.
4. $3.4M to send messages to moms to stop their teenage daughters from indoor tanning.
I can only imagine the phone bill of the U.S. government if they are sending $3.4M worth of text messages to mothers of teenage girls seeking to get fake tans. But seriously, what the hell is this? Not only is this an asinine waste of money, but it displays something considerably more sinister: an attempt by the government to regulate and direct people’s behavior. There is other stuff on here that is of similar nature, such as the government wasting money to get U.S. adults to stop binge-watching TV, but that only further goes to show how they truly do not see themselves as working for the people. Those who believe they can work and manipulate other people do not see themselves as their workers. What business does the government have if teenage girls are getting fake tans? And what purpose does it serve to regulate that behavior via sending messages to their mothers?
5. $2M to test if hot tubbing can lower stress.
Similar to that first point about stress causing white hair, this one is utterly asinine, but I can see the elitist purposes of this one. After all, there is no doubt in my mind that no less than 95% of people in Congress own a hot tub. They are worried about their shallow images, so they fund idiotic research like the link between stress and white hair, as well as possible cures for that, such as seeing if sitting in a hot tub can lower stress. Next, they’ll probably test if sitting in a sauna also lowers stress (frankly, it’s possible they’ve already funded that kind of research).
6. $1M to try to get people to stop being afraid of going to the dentist.
I have no words. I mean, what can I even say about this one?
7. $10M to spend five years monitoring elections in Zimbabwe.
Could we have gotten some of that money for monitoring our own elections? Because it seems to me like we could have used that. Like in my previous article, it seems like government officials are more interested in the elections of other countries, but could hardly care about the security and integrity of our own, as long as The Party’s preferred candidate was declared the “winner.” The omnibus bill included a challenge to the Belarusian elections (for some of the same issues which plagued the American elections) and also have spent our money on monitoring the elections in Zimbabwe. Can you tell me the name of the president of Zimbabwe? Did you even know that they had presidents? Maybe the name Robert Mugabe rings a bell, since he used to be president of Zimbabwe from 1978 until 2017. Apparently, our government is interested in who wins the elections there, for some reason.
8. $1.5M walking lizards on a treadmill.
Okay, I thought the one about getting people to stop being afraid of going to the dentist was the stupidest one on here, but I was wrong. What the hell is the purpose of this, exactly? This one tops last year’s funding of research to study the effects of nicotine on fish. I cannot at all even see a supposed purpose for this one. At least with the smoking fish, I could rationalize in my own head the purpose of the research (and even then, I noticeably struggled in that endeavor), but I cannot make heads or tails of this one. Why? Why would you do that? To test if the lizards enjoy a bit of cardio? Did the lizards gain a bit of weight during Thanksgiving and they needed a workout? Are we testing to see if lizards can be walked like dogs? I’m racking my brain here trying to make sense of this, but I really can’t.
9. $200,000 to study how people cooperate while playing e-sports video games.
The answer is that they probably cooperate like they would in actual sports: communication and planning. Football players and coaches draw up plays for them to try and win. Basketball players do the same. Competitive video game players, no doubt, do the same thing. That’s how they cooperate. Can I have my money now, government?
10. $4.5M to spray alcoholic rats with bobcat urine.
Okay, I have several questions. First, why? Second, why are the rats alcoholic? Third, why spray them with bobcat urine? Fourth, why spray them with urine at all? Fifth, why spend $4.5 million on this? What purpose does this serve? To see if the alcoholic rats got ticked off? I imagine they did. You would too if you were blackout drunk and someone sprayed you with urine. Just why?
There is much, much more, but I can only fit so many items and briefly talk about each of them without making this article overly lengthy. Sen. Rand Paul overall arrived at an estimated $54.7 billion in government waste, which could have been used to, I don’t know, give Americans more than an accumulated $1,800 over nine months!
The overall message of this article is not really dissimilar to the previous article regarding the omnibus bill: these people hate you and don’t have much problem with showing that. They will happily spend money finding out if hot tubs reduce stress, what the effect is for walking lizards on a treadmill, and what happens when you spray inexplicably alcoholic rats with bobcat urine, while the American people are outright forced by their local and state governments to lock down and be out of work. The government cares more about monitoring elections in Zimbabwe (which aren’t even scheduled to take place for another two years, so why is that item in this year’s budget? Or at all?) than it does about monitoring our own elections to make sure that one of the candidates doesn’t steal it from the rightful winner via election fraud.
The government is far more preoccupied with setting forth an agenda to force you into a strict diet of bugs while they dine like kings.
The Party hates you and will make you suffer for the success that you have brought for yourself. Even for those who are already poor, their share of suffering will further increase because The Party hates everyone whom they believe is beneath them.
1984 was supposed to be a warning for present and future generations about government overreach, not an instruction manual for those seeking to subject the world to their will.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Back in March of 2018, President Donald Trump, unfortunately, signed a horrendous omnibus bill for the fiscal year 2018 in order to avoid a shutdown. For fiscal years 2019 and 2020, Congress avoided pulling the same bullcrap, 11th hour writing and voting of an omnibus bill, heeding the warning by President Trump that he would not sign another bill like it.
Seeing as most people in Congress believe Joe Biden to be the President-elect, they are back to their usual b.s. ways, writing up an over 5,000-page omnibus package with Chinese coronavirus “relief” in it, and overwhelmingly voted for it in both chambers.
This omnibus bill is an even bigger slap in the face than the 2018 one was, seeing as we were not in government-mandated lockdowns back then.
With millions of people unemployed (and with stricter lockdown measures being imposed by far-Left governors, leading to worsening situations), thousands of businesses closed and fewer ways for Americans to feed themselves, Congress has approved a b.s. spending bill which graciously gives Americans making less than $75,000 a year a measly $600, which Speaker Pelosi called “significant” (while she called $1,000+ in bonuses handed out by businesses after the tax cuts were passed and implemented “crumbs”).
$600 is all you plebs are worth to the people who are supposed to serve us. $600 is all these people, who believe you should be locked down and without a job, think you should get. After 9 months of lockdowns, a total of $1800 per American (making up to a certain amount, that is) has been given to the American people who are losing their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and in some cases, their lives.
Meanwhile, take a look at what Congress chooses to help fund instead of struggling Americans:
And this is just regarding SOME spending in this $1.4 trillion bill. There is other asinine crap like investigating the 1908 Springfield Race Riot, regulations regarding race horses, funds for a museum offering “programming, education, exhibitions” on… “the life, art, history, and culture of women,” as well as some sections about discouraging teenagers from drinking and having sex (which is rather puzzling, seeing as Democrats make plenty of profit off of pregnant teenage girls too scared to consider anything other than an abortion), and educating “consumers about the dangers associated with using or storing portable fuel containers for flammable liquids near an open flame.”
Oh, and by the way, it gives $1,800 to households with illegal immigrants, so even they get more money than Americans do.
Like I mentioned earlier, this is an over 5,000-page bill, written shortly before it was passed, and I can guarantee this is just the tip of the ice berg for this insane bill.
But unlike that 5,000-page, nearly 1.4 million-word bill, I only need but one page and a few words to say to The Party: Screw you. And believe me, I SERIOUSLY want to use far stronger words than that. The English language doesn’t have enough words for me to describe how repulsed and enraged I am at Congress.
All of this spending for foreign nations and foreign and domestic programs and all Congress could give a damn about giving to Americans is $600? $900B was used for COVID relief. 900 billion divided by 330 million people in America amounts to more than $2,700 per American, which is more than what even President Trump was asking for. If Americans are getting $600, where is the other $2,100?
And, of course, idiot “small-government conservatives” like Rep. Jim Jordan have the gall to say “the best COVID relief is a job.” Are you kidding me? I don’t disagree, in general, but is this guy so divorced from reality that he has forgotten that MULTIPLE STATES HAVE ORDERED LOCKDOWNS THAT HAVE SHUTTERED BUSINESSES AND LED TO MILLIONS OF LAYOFFS?!
It’s because of idiots like Jordan that conservatives are considered heartless and outright stupid.
In just the first 5 weeks, nearly 27 million people lost their jobs. Due to the recent lockdowns in states like New York and California (as well as other states), we are still seeing 800,000+ unemployment claims every month and these tyrants don’t appear to be willing to let go of their chokehold on their residents any time soon.
Yeah, I would agree that the best COVID relief would be a job, but think about this for a second, Jimmy: WHY WOULD WE EVEN NEED COVID RELIEF IF JOBS WERE SO WIDELY AVAILABLE?! The very REASON Americans are asking for a handout here is not because they are lazy and don’t want to work – it’s because they have been FORCED not to work by their local and state governments, depending on their state.
This is not the time to be going like “get a job, hippie.” If the government is going to force Americans to not work, the LEAST they can do is subsidize them. This is not a “socialist” take, but a common sense one. The socialism comes in the form of forcing Americans to not work. The socialism comes in the form of reckless spending and subsidizing of PAKISTANI TRANNIES.
This omnibus bill reeks of America Last, and many people in The Party simply do not care.
Now, you might be asking why I’m even calling them “The Party.” It’s because this presidential election has taught me something valuable: there is virtually no difference whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans. I had a feeling this was the case sometimes, as I have spoken out against establishment Republicans and RINOs like Mitt Romney, but I see that the problem is considerably more widespread than I originally thought it was, if people like Gov. Kemp and his SecState are any indication (among others).
President Trump enjoys overwhelming support from voters who are Republicans, but not from the GOP itself. The GOP Chair and many other GOP politicians either stand in direct and open opposition to him or do so in secret, appearing to be supportive of him from the outside. There are only a handful of elected Republicans that I can actually consider to be at least fairly conservative and care about the American people. The rest are so in-line with Democrats that they may as well all belong to the same party.
Which is why I no longer care to differentiate between the “two” parties. They may have different names, but their goals are the same: screwing the American people and making sure they are on top and remain there. They might disagree as to what speed to go in accordance with this goal, but that’s where the differences end.
Oh, and speaking of the election, the omnibus bill includes a challenge to the presidential elections in BELARUS due to some of the same election shenanigans that were present in the U.S. election, such as early voting ballot stuffing, destruction of ballots, pressuring of poll workers, etc. So these are things that we would not tolerate in foreign elections, but when they happen here, particularly to benefit The Party’s preferred candidate, we are absolutely okay with it. What a joke.
These people have not suffered the consequences of their legislations – by design. Not one of them was subjected to the Obamacare mandates when they passed them. Not one of them is subjected to suffering what they put people through. They still get their paychecks. They don’t have to worry about where their next meal is going to come from. They don’t have to worry about facing eviction.
They don’t have to worry about how they’re going to pay for all these programs, foreign and domestic. Of course, eventually, we’ll run out of money, but they will run out of money only after we do.
Now, a liberal might argue “you didn’t seem to mind too much about government spending while Trump is in office, but now that Biden will be POTUS (which is arguable), you want to whine about government spending?” The difference between spending during the Trump economy and spending during the Leftist economy (such as Obama’s economy and this current one which has shuttered businesses and led to layoffs) is that a Trump economy is healthy and strong enough to be able to pay for a lot of the spending. Arguably, the government was still spending more than they should (and I have written about that), but with a healthy economy, there is less reason to worry about government spending. We do not have a healthy economy right now, though, thanks to Leftist politicians and RINO cowards (people who usually make up “The Party”).
The economy is suffering right now because of this and this is the biggest spending bill to date. This is how countries collapse.
And in the meantime, with these politicians not giving a rat’s ass about the future, all they can think to give struggling Americans is $600. It’s like they were so excited about all this spending that they nearly forgot they have to provide something to the American people, so they just threw in a number that is not big but not extremely and insultingly low. And yet, they still came up with an extremely and insultingly low number.
I suppose they wanted to give enough money for people to buy the new PS5, since they cost around $600. Nowhere near enough to help people pay their rent and bills (including electricity), but enough to let them get a new console and maybe a game or two.
These people hate you and they have no qualms about showing it. They pretend as though they are dissatisfied with this bill, but if they truly were, they would not have passed it, particularly with such overwhelming support for it.
These politicians are among the biggest reason Trump was elected in the first place. The President is one of only a handful of people in Washington D.C. (and in elected office in general) who actually give a damn about America and Americans. It’s no wonder, then, that they have worked so far to undermine him at every turn and outright cheat and break the law to steal a re-election he was going to win handily without that.
I can only hope that God will provide a way for us to undo the damage these evil bastards have been doing for decades and continue to do without a care in the world.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
I have the feeling that, after contracting the virus back in late March, and having been hospitalized and placed in ICU as a result, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had quite the scare about it, and as a result, decided to play Stalin throughout the pandemic, ordering lockdown after lockdown, as though they are effective at any capacity. And most recently, BoJo has ordered yet another lockdown, stricter than all the others, to be placed on London and most of southeast England, following the finding of a “new version” of the Chinese coronavirus.
According to the NYT, BoJo “abruptly reversed course on Saturday and imposed a wholesale lockdown on London and most of England’s southeast, banning Christmas-season gatherings beyond individual households,” following “evidence of a [Chinese coronavirus] variant first detected several weeks ago in southeast England, which the prime minister asserted was as much as 70 percent more transmissible than previous versions.”
BoJo said in his announcement back on Saturday: “When the virus changes its method of attack, we must change our method of defense. We have to act on information as we have it because this is now spreading very fast.”
What change in method of defense? This is the third lockdown imposed in England, and even stricter than the others, so what’s different about it? It’s trying the same thing, hoping for a different result. And what result is he hoping for? Keeping the virus from spreading altogether? That is quite literally impossible, particularly at this stage. As far as slowing it down goes, lockdowns have not shown to achieve that goal anywhere in the world. Look at the states where lockdowns were imposed as opposed to where lockdowns were not imposed. Look at the states where the governments have imposed draconian measures on its residents (which, of course, the government officials are not at all obligated to follow themselves) versus the states where logic and reason and evidence have won out.
A third, even stricter lockdown does nothing but hurt the residents of London and southeast England, which is why it’s not at all surprising to see what basically amounts to a World War-style exodus from the city.
According to the NY Post, the residents of London took to the streets en masse, rushing to escape the city before the new lockdown measures took effect, leading to traffic congestions and the city’s train stations being comparable to “war zones”, according to The UK Sun.
I mean, look at the picture above and tell me if BoJo’s draconian measures would be helpful in fighting this new variant of the Chinese coronavirus. There are other pictures and videos, of course, but I think you get the gist.
And by the way, I do not at all blame the residents of London for doing this. I’m not sharing these pictures to depict Londoners “not doing as they are told” or that they are dumb for it. I share them to depict how radical and insane these measures are. These people KNOW what it means to be locked down. Their freedoms are severely restricted. Their movements are severely restricted.
For crying out loud, Welsh supermarkets have been forced by their government to block off what they consider “non-essential items”, which includes TOYS. Just days before Christmas and the Welsh government made the fantastic and obviously data-driven decision to ban the sale of TOYS. Right, because we all know how quickly Barbie spreads the virus.
So I can’t say I blame the residents of London for doing this. I blame the idiotic governments that impose such moronic lockdowns which lead to people doing this kind of thing. I don’t doubt that the virus is being spread in doing this (and no, masks have not shown to be effective) and it will lead to the exact opposite of what BoJo had seemingly wanted. But this is what happens when you impose authoritarian measures on people: they want to leave.
You always hear of stories from immigrants about how much they wanted to leave their countries/fought to leave their countries. It’s not because they hold no love for them or anything of the sort, but because they want to seek better lives in freer places.
Wikipedia quite literally has a list of people who defected from the Soviet Union and countries in the Eastern Bloc, starting with George Balanchine, a Russian choreographer who defected to the Weimar Republic in 1924, and ending (at least pre-dissolution of the USSR) with Vitali Vitaliev, a Ukrainian author who defected to the UK in 1990. This list also includes the famous ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov.
Where there is authoritarianism, people tend to want to flee from those places. Even with less extreme examples, such as legal immigration from Latin America to the U.S., you can see that the people leaving those countries consider their home countries to be more authoritarian in nature than the U.S., and thus, choose to leave for America (at least, that’s the case for some immigrants).
So, again, it’s not surprising to see Londoners seeking to flee London: the city’s freedoms are being restricted even further by an oppressive regime.
One might argue that the lockdowns are “good” for people and that it’s “for their safety”, but then why do we not follow that up by advocating for everyone to be placed in cages 24/7? They won’t run into anything that would compromise their safety then, right? So long as there is someone (likely from the government) to feed them and give them water, then it’s ok, right? Of course, the cage itself would lead people to suffer in their health (physical and mental) due to extreme isolation and the need to defecate *somewhere*, but the outside world also offers a lot of dangerous situations, so you reach an impasse in terms of maintaining safety for these people.
We cannot pretend as though life can be devoid of risks. Children go to school despite the risk of things like influenza and other illnesses. Adults go to work despite the risk of contracting a disease. Scientists experiment despite the risk of things going wrong. Mechanics work despite the risk of electrocution or getting crushed by a car. Taxi drivers work despite the risk of car crashes. People walk outside despite the risk of getting run over, kidnapped, mugged, raped, or killed.
The point is to MINIMIZE the risks, not to futilely seek to eliminate those risks. Strict lockdowns attempt to do the latter, giving no mind to what they risk in return.
Lockdowns means people don’t work and businesses suffer; that means the economy suffers; that means people suffer. Families run into financial problems, mental and physical problems, and problems with having food to eat and a place to stay. Being locked down means being subject to a slow financial death. Well, at least for those of us who are not the 1%, seeing as they tend to benefit from this kind of thing (in the short-term, at least).
So when BoJo announced that new, even stricter lockdowns would be put into place for London and southeast England, OF COURSE you’re going to see such a massive exodus. These people are fleeing for their LIVES; not out of fear of the virus, but out of fear of the GOVERNMENT – out of fear of TYRANNY.
Whenever new lockdowns are announced anywhere, this is what I think of:
“It’s good for you,” they say as they suffocate you with a pillow.
Despite all this, and likely because of this response, I doubt BoJo or the UK government will learn “hmm, people don’t like this, maybe we should stop doing it.” Tyrants do things for “the greater good” of people, regardless of how many bodies they leave behind.
People must continuously fight for their freedoms, everywhere. Else, they risk losing everything, and it’s hard to get it back.
2 Corinthians 3:17
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”
It is rather well-documented just how tyrannical and even anti-Semitic New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is, so it is not really surprising to see him utter yet another threat to a synagogue which refuses to be illegally and unconstitutionally shut down by the dictator. However, what he said specifically is fairly brow-raising.
During a press conference earlier on Tuesday, de Blasio uttered a threat to a synagogue for having a secret funeral which sounded as though he was taking revenge on them. For additional context, this is the same synagogue which was previously fined in November for holding a large secret indoor wedding.
De Blasio, according to The Daily Wire, said: “If we see another confirmed situation in which an inappropriate event is happening in that same building, then we’re going to have to move to shut down the building once and for all. That would be the next step if we see non-compliance.”
“Once and for all”? It’d be one thing if he said “for good” or “permanently” which would still be problematic and emblematic of his hatred for those who exercise their constitutional freedom of religion, but “once and for all” sounds like he is plotting revenge, as if he had wanted to do this previously and is now fed-up to the point of doing it.
“Once and for all,” of course, still means permanently, but putting it this way makes it sound like he figured it was a long time coming.
De Blasio went on to say “I do think there’s an ideological factor that’s making things a lot harder,” seemingly implying that one of the biggest reasons for the Jewish community’s non-compliance with the city’s and state’s orders comes from their widespread support for President Trump. To me, I don’t doubt that there is an ideological factor in de Blasio’s actions as well.
As I pointed out in a previous article where de Blasio personally went to break up a Jewish funeral back in April (getting some SS roleplay time), while he has shut down churches and synagogues, he has allowed mosques to remain open for daily prayers, which tend to be just as crowded as normal congregations for churches and synagogues, not to mention Muslims do this five times a day, thereby showing that this isn’t about health and safety at all. Furthermore, since the writing of that article, the George Floyd situation happened and protests and riots have been allowed to take place – with de Blasio personally attending at least one of those protests.
So he allows mosques to remain open, likely because many Muslims would be calling for his head (both figuratively and literally), and he allows protests that push a Leftist message of racial injustice and inequality, but any other kind of protests, such as anti-lockdown ones, he is against, and anyone else who is not a Muslim wanting to go to places of worship must still be disallowed from doing so.
Mosques are allowed to remain open for daily prayers, but if a synagogue or even a church wants to do the things they have always been allowed to do before this dictatorship, de Blasio goes full SS on them?
I should not sound so surprised. Again, his anti-Semitism and hypocrisy are well-documented, even beyond his actions during this pandemic.
The funny thing is that, back in October, he seemingly reflected on his words and actions from back in April, when he personally shut down that Jewish funeral, telling a reporter from the Jewish Insider: “I look back now and understand there was just more dialogue that was needed. That one night in Williamsburg I let my frustration and concern get away with me and I should have been more careful in my language and I’ve expressed my apology for that before. The No. 1 takeaway from the meeting (with Haredi leaders) is more dialogue. More communication is the way forward.”
That didn’t last long, did it? Now, he’s gone back to “you disobey me, you feel my wrath." Again, with those words of “once and for all”, it sounds like he is plotting revenge on at least that particular synagogue (and all other synagogues and churches would likely further incur his wrath just to “teach them a lesson”).
Now, seemingly, those threats are “laughable” according to an unnamed source who talked with the Gothamist. “These tactics were available to him the entire time. I don’t see any reason to think he’s going to do it this time.”
To the guy’s credit, de Blasio has repeatedly threatened with permanently shutting down synagogues and churches which did not comply with his regime’s rules, but he has not actually gone through with such threats. Possibly because he understands that it would still not exactly look good for him if he were to do so, even with the “justification” of them not complying with his rules, but even then, I’m not sure why he hasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope he never does and, if recent history has shown anything, he likely won’t either, but considering he is a Democrat and the media would be on his side to spin things in his favor, I don’t know what exactly is keeping him from pulling the trigger. NYC has a large Jewish population (over 1.1 million), which means a rather sizable voting bloc, but Jews tend to be Republican, so it’s not like de Blasio has hopes of retaining or gaining their support, either for re-election bids or for any presidential aspirations he may have.
It very well could be that all of his threats end up being nothing more than bluffs, but there exists the possibility that they aren’t. That’s not to say that the synagogues or churches should alter their behavior – they very well should be fighting for their rights and freedoms which have been illegally and unconstitutionally taken away under false pretenses – but that is to say that de Blasio may reach a tipping point at some point, and places of worship (excluding mosques since they won’t be targeted by the Left) ought to prepare for such an instance.
At any rate, the way de Blasio put his threat was fairly brow-raising, in my opinion, and sounded an awful lot like a revenge-type of threat. Whether or not he goes through with it is another matter entirely, but I hope we can kick out of power the people who have demonstrated do not deserve to wield it.
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, He may give it to you.”
The United States Constitution is a very unique document. Apart from the Magna Carta, it is the only document in the history of man which places rules and regulations on the government, rather than the governed. It does not outright give Americans their rights, as such rights are inherently given to us by God and not by Man. It details what freedoms and liberties Americans enjoy which the government cannot take away… unless there is a viral pandemic, apparently.
But the reason I say this is because, like I said, it is extremely rare for a document, written and signed by people who would be in government, to restrict the freedoms of the government, for that is the only way that the people can be free. Every other time in history, rules and laws were written to restrict the freedom of the governed, as opposed to the government. And seemingly far too many are perfectly content with the norm, not the exception.
Throughout the Chinese coronavirus pandemic (which as more information was made known to the public, it appears to have been majorly overblown, but you’ll be called a “denier” and basically a heretic for recognizing that fact), various different governments, both at home and abroad, have instituted different policies to “combat” the virus. Most have opted to issue lockdown orders with varying degrees of strictness. Others have opted to remain open the entire time. And others tried the former until common sense kicked in and opted to open back up.
However, while many who opted to lock things down are still pushing for such measures, at various different points, many of them have, in some cases repeatedly, broken the very rules that they have instituted on others.
I have already written about how Nancy Pelosi (she herself did not order lockdowns in her district, since she does not have such power, but she is an advocate for strict lockdowns, so she is still a hypocrite) disobeyed lockdown orders to go to a hair salon which she ordered be open just to service her (and later got caught and went on to blame the salon owner because the princess cannot be imperfect), but many other Democrats have done things that they have strongly urged or ordered other people not to do.
The Federalist has a great list of such people, some of which I will share with you here (not all of them, since it would make this article too long).
Some of the most notable examples of utter Leftist hypocrisy come from people like Austin Mayor Steven Adler, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Let’s begin with Austin Mayor Adler because this one is actually hilarious. In the popular (and somehow still on-going) TV show “The Simpsons”, there is an episode where Japanese factory workers spread a virus to Springfield via the shipping of juicers. At one point in the episode, we see an emergency announcement from Mayor Quimby, where he says that because of the epidemic, he had cancelled his vacation to the Bahamas. He made it look, through particular camera angles, as though he was still in his office in Springfield, with a fake cutout of his office in the background. However, a man playing the steel drums is seen walking across the shot, panning out and showing Quimby is already in the Bahamas, as shown in the clip below.
The reason I talk about this is because Mayor Adler did something extremely similar to this, as back in November, he threatened Austin residents with another lockdown if they didn’t stay at home for the holidays… while vacationing in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.
On a Facebook video, Adler said: “We need to stay home if you can. This is not the time to relax. We are going to be looking really closely… We may have to close things down if we are not careful.”
All the while he is enjoying his time in a resort town in Mexico. It’s so egregiously hypocritical that, prior to this, it was only seen on a satirical cartoon.
Next, there is Gov. Newsom, who enjoyed a fancy dinner with more than a dozen people after having prohibited gatherings of more than three households prior to Thanksgiving. Photos of the dinner showed that not one of the CDC guidelines were followed. No one wore masks, no one socially distanced, and it was a dinner held indoors.
Literally all of those things Newsom requires of California residents but because he knows that nothing bad will happen to him politically, he disregards such a thing, at least in secret. He knows that only chumps blindly follow these orders and he knows that even the ones that are against them do not have the power to do a damn thing about it, so he enjoys breaking the very rules he imposes on others.
That is a constant theme for tyrants throughout history, let alone this year with this virus. And when Newsom got caught, he gave a non-apology, supposedly “admitted his mistake” and went on to tighten lockdown restrictions further.
Then there is Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, who actually did something very similar to Adler. The mayor boarded a flight to Houston on his way to visit his daughter in Mississippi while demanding that Denver residents do not travel for Thanksgiving.
In a tweet, he wrote: “Pass the potatoes, not COVID. Stay home as much as you can, especially if you’re sick. Host virtual gatherings instead of in-person dinners. Avoid travel, if you can. Order your holiday meal from a local eatery. Shop online with a small business for Black Friday.”
According to The Federalist, prior to takeoff, “Hancock had also urged city staff to cancel their travel plans for the holiday. ‘As the holidays approach, we all long to be with our families with person [sic], but with the continued rise in cases, I’m urging you to refrain from travel this Thanksgiving,’ Hancock write [sic] in an email to employees.”
So the guy didn’t even let his own staff break the rules. Only he got to do it, huh? Not that I would have been content with the staff being allowed to break the rules anyway. It’s b.s. that such rules are being made for everyone, but the people implementing those rules do not have to live with the consequences of their actions. Their jobs are not in peril, their livelihoods are not in peril and their futures are not in peril. They don’t care because they don’t have to care, so they do whatever they want whenever they want. Such is the life of the antipathic tyrant.
At any rate, next there is Lori Lightfoot, who has repeatedly broken the rules she herself has imposed or at the very least openly backs and supports. For example, according to The Federalist, back in late March, she “admonished residents wishing to open back up hair salons. ‘Getting your roots done is not essential,’ Lightfoot said. Days later, Lightfoot pushed her way into a shut-down salon closed under the state governor’s lockdown order for a special treatment.”
And the truly egregious part of that? When she got caught and was asked about her hypocrisy, she got annoyed and said: “I’m the public face of this city. I’m on national media, and I’m out in the public eye.”
Translation: “I’m important, you’re not, suck it.”
The sheer arrogance boils my very blood. She is, in no unclear terms, basically saying that because she is an important figure in Chicago, the rules don’t apply to her. Could you imagine if a Republican had said anything CLOSE to that? As annoying as Republican governors who have no guts to reopen their states may be, at least I have yet to catch them breaking the very rules they set for other people. They may be cowardly and/or idiotic to continue with ruinous lockdown orders, but at least they have the decency to adhere to the orders they have put into place. Democrats get to do whatever they want and they know perfectly well that the media won’t draw attention to them or call them out for it, and if they somewhat do, all they have to do is offer the least sincere non-apology ever and they’re good.
Anyway, returning to Lightfoot (I did say she is a repeat offender), following Biden’s “win”, Lightfoot went out to celebrate with other commies in a super-spreader event. Obviously, doing that would garner some amount of questioning from someone in the media, and Lightfoot’s excuse for attending such a super-spreader event was that the “crowd was gathered whether I was there or not.”
So it’s okay for only CERTAIN crowds to gather, so long as they gather for a Leftist cause, such as BLM riots or the celebration of an illegitimate victory. And because everyone else was doing it, like the role model that she is, Lightfoot chose to go with the flow and attend the super-spreader.
Take that event and make it about any other topic, such as a party where drugs are present, and take that excuse, and you would have a LOT of drug-addicted kids. “The others were doing drugs whether or not I was doing them, so it’s okay that I did them.” Clearly, Lightfoot’s parents never gave her the question about if her friend jumped off a bridge, would she do it as well.
In any case, finally, we have the Nursing Home Killer himself: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
According to The Federalist, Cuomo went to some political event in Georgia back in July, where he was seen not wearing a mask and in close proximity to a number of other people. The kicker is that Georgia was on New York’s travel advisory list back then, meaning that those who traveled to New York from Georgia were under orders to quarantine for 14 days. What exactly do you think the chances are that he actually did that?
Given what he and many other Democrat tyrants have done in the past few months, I’d say it’s absolute zero.
The Federalist mentions others, such as L.A. Mayor Garcetti, but this article is long enough as it is and I believe just these examples make the point well enough on their own. These people are sick tyrants, unconcerned with the effects their destructive policies have had and will have on the very people they are supposed to serve because they have deluded themselves into believing that they are doing all of it for the good of the people (even despite them not following such orders, potentially endangering the people they are with, so one is bound to call into question their intentions).
These people are tyrants, and there is little evidence to prove otherwise. I just hope enough of the American people recognize this and fight for the freedoms afforded to them by God and detailed by the Constitution.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo spoke at a press conference regarding the rising cases of Chinese coronavirus and opted to blame the people for “disobeying” Chinese coronavirus guidelines, after having praised them in the same press conference for “obeying” and lowering the positivity rates in the state.
In this bizarre rant, Cuomo said: “The good news is micro clusters work. Following the rules work. Broome County was a yellow and an orange. Broome County was a yellow zone. It’s now under control and is back to normal. Orange County was a yellow zone. A little confusing. It is now back to normal. Brooklyn was an orange zone, is being dropped to a yellow zone. So, the restrictions work and just to make it very simple, if you socially distanced and you wore a mask and you were smart, none of this would be a problem. It’s all self-imposed. It’s all self-imposed. If you didn’t eat the cheesecake, you wouldn’t have a weight problem. It’s all self-imposed.”
So Cuomo is not only victim-blaming for the rising COVID numbers (which don’t even really matter as much as people want you to believe. What matters is the death toll, not the number of cases) but also used a fat-shaming analogy to do so?
Could you imagine if a Republican governor had said the exact same thing with the exact same words and analogy? If you’re a Democrat, you get to victim-blame people and even using fat-shaming analogies to victim-blame. This is the same mentality of “if you didn’t wear the short skirt, you wouldn’t have been raped.” Perhaps to a less extreme degree, of course, but it’s still victim-blaming no matter how you slice it.
And by the way, like I said earlier, he previously praised New Yorkers about cases going down. “New Yorkers have done a phenomenal job and New Yorkers deserve credit because they have done a phenomenal job. And I know you guys don’t write the right context. That’s where we are 2.8, which is great news relative to everyone else. Look at the highest percentages. South Dakota, 56. Iowa, 51. Kansas, 43.”
So Cuomo PRAISED New Yorkers for lowering the infectivity rate before lambasting them for “not obeying” him? Which is it? Are New Yorkers deserving of praise for socially distancing and wearing a mask and “being smart”, or are they deserving of scorn for not socially distancing and not wearing a mask and not “being smart”?
Another problem that Cuomo faced, aside from the obvious backlash that he received because he is imposing even stricter lockdowns with zero reason to do so (not that there were any to begin with, but the reasons that the Left uses for it, such as schools being hotbeds for it, are scientifically unfound), is that the numbers he shared are not entirely accurate.
Later in the press conference, a reporter pointed out to Cuomo that his numbers were incorrect, saying: “Johns Hopkins has said that those numbers aren’t completely up to date and may differ from the states levels because they’re still trying to prep this formula… Those numbers don’t match the positivity ratings in states like South Dakota, for example. They do not have 56% of tests coming up positive.”
So, ultimately, in this press conference, Cuomo chose to lambast New Yorkers for not obeying the guidelines, praise New Yorkers for lowering positive rates (if they weren’t obeying the guidelines and this was still the result, what does that tell you about the guidelines?), and shared fake statistics regarding “rival” states, such as South Dakota, whose governor is fiercely anti-lockdown and pro-freedom?
Why do I even remotely sound surprised? This guy is an absolute disaster, unlike how the media portrays him. They revere him as this great leader who took control of the virus (until he didn’t), and he views himself this way, having written a book about how “successful” he was, despite the fact that the state is the premiere example as to what NOT to do at every single turn, with it having ranked as the worst state for cases and deaths for a very long time, and with him having made the order (which he now vehemently denies like a communist dictator) to send sick people to nursing and retirement homes, leading to over 6,000 deaths which are unequivocally Cuomo’s fault. The guy is a massive failure but because he took it seriously from the beginning, he is praised as a model executive.
What a load of crap. The guy makes as many mistakes as he did (at no point were the hospitals overwhelmed or the emergency hospital ships even used for treating patients), is responsible for killing as many people as he did (6,000 is a conservative estimate, by the way), fancies himself some sort of genius, writes a book about his “successes” in “handling the virus” (and his ego only grows as he won an Emmy, for some reason) and then proceeds to, in the same press conference, lambast and praise New Yorkers?
It’s so bizarre, as well. He points to lower positivity cases (which may not even be factual, but he believes they are and that’s important) across the state and in a number of counties, going so far as to calling it “good news” and then says that it’s a problem? He said “none of this would be a problem” when talking about GOOD NEWS. What is this guy on?
At any rate, I just hope that some way, somehow, at some point, New Yorkers can get rid of guys like Cuomo and DeBlasio, who have been abject failures for their state and city, respectively. They have jumped the gun at every turn, made horrible decisions which have ruined the lives of countless people (all-the-while enriching the 1%, whom the Left claims is their “enemy”) and have utterly failed at doing their jobs.
They, alongside all other communistic Democrats everywhere else in the nation, must be voted out of power asap.
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
I will be honest with you, despite the title of this article, I do not think the following poll actually is all that confusing, but I will explain my reasoning in just a moment. For now, let me talk about the poll.
According to a recent poll commissioned by Oakland’s Chamber of Commerce, a majority of Oakland residents support defunding the police but also either want the same amount of officers or even more officers than are currently active.
The poll found that 56% of respondents (out of 624 surveyors, so not a big sample size) support defunding the police in the city, including 35% who say they “strongly” support that idea. Only 36% say they oppose defunding the police and 8% said they did not know how to answer the question.
From this alone, one can picture that a lot of the surveyors here, clearly a majority, have no idea what defunding the police means or what it actually does. But you get an even stronger sense of this given what they also went on to answer.
When asked if they support the idea of increasing the number of police, decreasing it, or maintaining it as it is, 58% said they either want more police or are fine with the current number, including 31% who want to increase, with only 27% wanting to reduce the number of police.
So a majority of the city’s residents, as represented by the respondents, support the idea of defunding the police while at the same time, an even bigger majority supports the idea of either maintaining the number of police or increasing the number of police?
I don’t blame you for being confused, but allow me to try and untangle this mess.
I have two theories as to why we see these seemingly contradictory numbers. My first theory is that Oakland’s residents have no idea what defunding the police means or what it would actually and effectually do to the police departments.
It could be that they believe the police department could be defunded only in terms of equipment or some such thing, but considering that they want more officers (which means they want more safety and a better ability for the law to be enforced), I doubt that that’s what they want. If you want more officers, that means you want the law to be better enforced because you don’t think the current number is sufficient. If you want the law to be better enforced by adding more officers, you don’t couple that with decreased or zero funding.
This also does away with the idea that people think “defund” means “still funding them but giving them less than what they got previously.” If you want more officers, you want more safety. If you want more safety, you want the police to be well-funded.
This first theory of mine that the residents don’t know what it means could still be the case, which is why I don’t eliminate it as a possibility entirely, particularly since it could be that a lot of people didn’t think too much about what defunding the police would actually do, but maybe I’m not giving the people of Oakland enough credit.
This first theory presumes ignorance, which could be the case, but I cannot say for certain whether or not the people of Oakland know that defunding the police would inevitably lead to less police officers out on the streets.
But let’s move on to my second and final theory, which is that the respondents were answering this question as though it were a “black lives matter” question. That is to say, that they think “defunding the police” is a slogan to show support for black people and their “struggle”, and so they say that they support “defunding the police” like they support “black lives matter” without necessarily supporting BLM.
Especially in Oakland, where there are a lot of Leftists, it could be that plenty of people do not necessarily agree with this idea but do not want to reveal their true thoughts and beliefs. Similarly to how Joe Biden was supposedly so far ahead in a lot of states and yet, Trump has so far gotten 10 million more votes than he did in 2016, showing massive growth in support.
Maybe some people said they “support defunding the police” to protect themselves from some form of persecution, or some people said that to “show they support black people”, but at the end of the day, they actually want more police or the same amount of police, which would require either more funding or the same amount of funding, not less.
It’s hard to be a Republican, or even a moderate, and live in a deep blue city or state. It’s for this reason that a lot of once-promising conservative rising stars like Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake end up being RINOs. You can only fight back against the enemy deep within their territory for so long. Of course, some people have far more endurance, like Trump, Tom Cotton, and others, but because of the swamp’s toxicity, a lot of these promising conservatives end up being part of the swamp.
Similarly, regular people can only endure in deep-blue areas for so long. They are in a constant battle, especially if they are in any way social with other people. If they have friends, chances are that most or all of them are liberals. Wherever they work, chances are that their bosses are liberals. So in order to maintain a social lifestyle and have any sort of shot at getting promoted (or keeping their job), they have to hide their true thoughts and beliefs, at least to an extent.
Used to be that being apolitical or sounding moderate was acceptable, and in many places it might still be, but even that is beginning to be unacceptable by an intolerant Left which demands submission from everyone else. Either you believe the things they believe or you are an enemy. It’s why so many people in the middle are being pushed to the right: The Left is the one pushing them.
Even despite the election shenanigans going on regarding the presidency, the Democrats have LOST GROUND in many key areas. Trump is pulling in plenty of minority support, and once-blue areas are turning a little bit red, such as Zapata County in Texas, which is 93% Hispanic and in the last century, has voted for two Republican presidents: Warren Harding and Donald Trump.
Going far-Left is hurting the Democrats in many places, even in areas which were once solid-blue.
But even despite this reality, many on the Left believe that the key to winning in the future is to double-down and go even further to the Left. This means being far less tolerant of not only right-wingers, but even moderates and those who do not really talk much about politics. So for anyone living in deep-blue cities like Oakland, they have to outwardly express support for Leftist beliefs, even if they 100% oppose them.
And so, many express “support” for “defund the police” while at the same time saying that they want the same amount of officers as are currently active or an increase in the number of officers. And the best part? Apart from Chinese respondents, African Americans are the least likely to support defunding the police, and are also most likely to want an increase in police officers and least likely to want a reduction in the police force.
So it is a complete myth that supporting “defund the police” is an act of supporting black people and what they have to go through. Black people want to be safe too, and a reduction in police officers means a reduction in their safety. “Defund the police” is not at all a slogan to help and protect black people. It’s a slogan for chaos and destruction. A slogan for far-Leftists to tug at people’s heart strings and make them believe they are fighting for a noble cause when they are not.
I’ve already mentioned how James Clyburn noted that he believes “defund the police” hurt the Democrats in down-ballot elections, and I believe he is correct, to an extent. I think there are a lot more reasons than just that, but I believe that is one of them.
Which also makes the idea that Joe Biden is ahead at any capacity all the more ludicrous. Sure, he never outright expressed support for “defunding the police” but it’s hard to gauge what he believes when he spent the last few months of the election largely hunkered down at home or believing he was running against George Bush (or George Lopez, if you ask the media).
But at any rate, I believe this second theory, that people are outright lying to pollsters about what they believe, is more likely to be correct than the first one. Of course, there is the possibility that it could be a mix of both to an extent, but I still believe this second theory is the correct one.
People have lives to live and if they have to, they will lie about what they believe if expressing such beliefs could hurt them at any capacity. It’s the sad reality in which we live.
But it is still clear that people do value the police, even while loud Leftists make it seem as though the country has turned against them. “Defund the police” is a slogan from a loud minority, not from a majority.
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not carry the sword in vain. He is God’s servant, an agent of retribution to the wrongdoer.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...