Either everyone has freedom of speech, or no one does. That is what I believe, and considering that there is such a thing as cancel culture in this day and age, I am of the belief that it should be used against the very people that created it. I wish to eradicate cancel culture by using it against the Left, the biggest users of it. However, there are plenty of people who simply wish to advocate for free speech (I do too, don’t misunderstand) and have signed a letter denouncing cancel culture altogether.
Harper’s Magazine issued a letter about justice and open debate. While they do not exactly hold a conservative view (they outright call Trump a “real threat to democracy” and believe censorship is a right-wing invention “spreading more widely in [Left-wing] culture”), they do hold what can be considered a truly liberal view: we have the liberty to disagree with one another.
Now, I, for one, believe that liberals have always been communists in disguise, but there are people out there who hold the CONSERVATIVE view that we should be able to disagree with one another and believe it to be a more liberal view because “liberty” is the root word for the term.
Regardless of the history of the term, how it is used, or what people believe it really means, the point remains that there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who will disagree in terms of politics but agree that we should have the freedom to disagree with one another without our entire livelihoods being upended as a result of holding a dissenting opinion (and usually, such opinions dissent from the Leftist, communist opinion).
Over 150 people signed the letter, all agreeing that we have the right to free speech and we should not be canceled for disagreement, including people like Anne Applebaum, Noam Chomsky, David Frum, Katie Herzog, J. K. Rowling, Jennifer Finney Boylan, Jesse Singal and Matthew Yglesias, to name a few.
Plenty of people with differing views on differing things, all coming to agreement that cancel culture is dangerous and that we should have the ability to speak our minds without being threatened with losing our jobs or actually losing our jobs.
Unsurprisingly, cancel culture went after these people, and it has already claimed three victims: Kerri K. Greenidge, who had originally signed the letter but eventually tweeted “I do not endorse this Harper's letter” (an absolute lie, seeing as she had signed it), an anonymous person who claimed that “she did not know who all the other signatories were” and Jennifer Finney Boylan, who also said she did not know who the other signatories were and apologized for having signed the letter.
This action, inadvertently, proves the letter’s precise point. These people, for holding a dissenting thought that we should be ALLOWED to hold a dissenting thought, were punished and threatened with their livelihoods.
And we all know that if any of them crumble, as some have, many more will follow because that is how the cancel culture works: they get one, they know what works and will use it against more and more people. And the more and more people who succumb to it, the more influential this cancel culture is. That is the ONLY reason we are in the situation we are in. Cancel culture is this prevalent because people have ALLOWED IT to be.
Whenever someone is even remotely accused of racism or holding “wrong-think”, that person is forced to apologize like they just killed the Pope. Tweets from a decade ago, comments from long ago, are resurfaced and the targets are forced to apologize. It’s so bad, people have tried to get John Wayne canceled even though he’s been dead for ages.
The minute someone expresses even a semblance of dissenting thought, they are forced to kneel before General Mob (pun intended). Even if they try to adhere to the radical Left’s “correct” and “allowed” speech codes, they can be forced to apologize for “excluding” a group of people or another. Even if you are the most hardcore Leftist today, in the span of just a few years, the things you said, even if they were “progressive” today, could be considered “dangerous” and “ignorant” and you could be forced to apologize.
No one at all is safe from cancel culture. Just this week, I saw people trying to cancel communist FRIDA KHALO for “appropriating” indigenous culture in Mexico. Even the communists of the past aren’t safe from the cancel culture. Of course, I doubt the communists who were in power, such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao Zedong, would be canceled because they brought forth the same communism that these people clamor for, but if done right, cancel culture can be used against them too.
At any rate, while I obviously do not agree with everything the letter itself said, or with everyone who signed the letter, I do agree that people should be free to speak their mind without fear of cancelation by an outraged mob that seeks the blood of the innocent.
I want cancel culture to be destroyed altogether and for liberty to prevail, but while it exists as a weapon against conservatives (the primary targets), I will use it every bit the same way the Left uses it.
As I once told someone on Twitter on this subject, no duel was ever won by the guy who refused to shoot out of “principle”. Cancel culture is an abomination and should cease to exist, but while it does exist and is used against us, I say we use these weapons against the Left.
It ain’t pretty, that’s for sure, but then again, no war is, and there is no doubt in my mind that we are in the midst of a cultural war.
“If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In this day and age, with the dominance of social media and its censorship of conservatives, not to mention poll after poll indicating a rise in popularity for socialism and communism among America’s youth, it is easy to get discouraged about the future of this country.
However, a recent poll by Young America’s Foundation (YAF) and Echelon Insights, reported by TownHall, shows a rather interesting picture about the way in which America’s youth views this country.
According to the poll, 82% of surveyors held a “very” or “somewhat” favorable opinion of the American flag, with 91% of high-school students and 73% of high school graduates saying the same. This tells us something very interesting which I will get to in a minute, though I doubt you haven’t figured it out yet.
In any case, 57% of respondents said “they believe America is ‘exceptional and unique’ and is a country that ‘values liberty.’” 54% also felt that America offers “opportunity for all who work for it,” and 46% said America is both a “good example for other countries” and that the nation “values justice”; 43% said the country “values equality.”
63% of respondents said they felt “extremely” or “very” comfortable standing for the national anthem and 58% were comfortable with reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
80% of surveyors also reported a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of war veterans, 75% favor the military, 72% the Constitution, 65% the Founding Fathers, and 57% favored the history of this country as a whole. Interestingly, 34% of respondents said they would be “extremely” or “very” willing to serve the country if we were to be attacked, 31% said they would serve if we went to war and 30% said they would serve during “peacetime.”
Now, there is a very important aspect to this poll, which takes me back to one of the figures earlier: the 91% of high school students and 73% of graduates who have a favorable opinion of the American flag. This is an indication of the sort of Marxist indoctrination that students go through post-high school, specifically in college.
The demographical makeup of the poll is as follows: 47% of respondents were male, while 53% were female. 42% of surveyors were high schoolers, or high-school aged, 13% were students working towards an associate’s degree, 31% working towards a bachelor’s degree and 7% towards a graduate degree. 21% of respondents reported being either “very” or “somewhat” conservative, 33% said they were “very” or “somewhat” progressive and 33% said they were moderate.
Perhaps the most important figure here is the number of high schoolers. A sizeable majority of the people surveyed here are still in high school, and while it’s been a long while since I have been in high school, I don’t exactly remember it as having been extremely Leftist to the point where I felt they were essentially indoctrinating me. Now, this was some time ago, as I said, and I was a bit more liberal at the time, so maybe I just didn’t really notice it too much, but I have no doubt that high schools generally indoctrinate kids less than universities do.
For example, there is this story about the daughter of a Republican Congressional candidate from Michigan who went on Twitter and outright begged for people to not vote for her father because he and she disagree on issues like socialism, communism, “systemic racism”, and other Leftist garbage. With the candidate being a conservative, I doubt he didn’t teach his daughter the right things. But whatever he may have taught her, it’s clear that the college he sent her to erased all of that and rewired her brain to be more like their desired communist puppet.
It’s no surprise at all that “college-educated” voters tend to vote Democrat, since colleges all attempt, to one extent or another, to indoctrinate kids to be against Republicans, conservatives, God and the country itself. So it really is no wonder to find such numbers in the YAF poll, considering that a sizable portion of the surveyors were still in high school. This is no knock on YAF, of course, but rather a warning of what sort of damage colleges do: they are meant to destroy any and all patriotism found within kids.
Parents tend to teach their kids to love this country, but colleges undo all of that. The ONLY reason the Left wants to make college free for anyone is so that more and more people attend and so that more and more people get indoctrinated.
People, including young generations, tend to be more patriotic when they are not subjected to mass indoctrination in colleges. Of course, government schools still try and do that, albeit to a lesser extent, but protecting oneself from the indoctrination of colleges is really the best solution, in my opinion.
Leftists might be calling to defund the police, but conservatives should be calling to defund universities (for a variety of reasons, not simply because they indoctrinate children, considering many colleges have ties to China, and that alone poses a massive national security threat for this country).
But apart from that, I am happy to see that even younger generations still typically hold conservative, patriotic beliefs. We must ensure, however, that the Left does not succeed in eroding such beliefs from our youth.
Happy Independence Day!
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Pop culture. Mainstream Media. Social Media. Politics. All of these things are dominated by the Left to one extent or another. All of these things feature Left-wing ideologies, ideas, policies, beliefs and objectives. All of these things make you believe that the loud voices you hear are the mainstream, popular and majority opinions. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Gallup recently ran a poll to find where Americans find themselves on the political spectrum and the results can be eye-opening for some, or perhaps, most people. According to Gallup, while there are more Americans who align themselves with the Democrat Party than Republican (47-42%, respectively), the number of conservatives in this country is far bigger than the number of liberals and that gap is growing.
Gallup surveyed nearly 30,000 people (so a massive sample size) and found that 37% of Americans view themselves as “conservative”. This number is up from the previous time this survey was taken (2018) when 35% identified as “conservative” so a two-point increase. But while the number of conservatives grew in 2019, the number of liberals SHRANK.
According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify themselves as “liberal” is just 24%, down from 26% the previous year. 35% of Americans identified as “moderate” though it’s possible that a decent number of them are conservatives who were too afraid to say they are conservative out of fear of scorn or persecution and one cannot really blame someone for this.
As I said, pop culture, the MSM, social media, etc. are all DOMINATED by Left-wing rhetoric and ideology. You hear the biggest names in Hollywood or in sports often lambasting the President or even the country itself. You watch the news and most of it is negative towards Trump and those who support him. You go on social media and you often see Left-wing babble trending on Twitter or conservatives being censored or conservative videos getting taken down or conservative comments being flagged as “hate speech”, etc.
The loud voices of the Left are so overwhelming and frequent that you can’t help but think they are in the majority. And THAT is the reason they are so loud. They don’t have the numbers. The vast majority of people do not agree with everything these self-righteous hypocrites have to say. The vast majority of people do not agree with them. But as they live in their own narcissistic bubble and believe they are the most important and intelligent people on Earth, they believe most people do agree with them and couldn’t possibly stand that most people do not, so they delude themselves.
Remember when Rose McGowan tweeted that “52% of us humbly apologize” for the drone strike that killed Soleimani? She sincerely believes that 52% of the country is Left-wing 24/7 and agrees with her and the Left on basically everything. She believes 52% of the country is with her on this, but according to The Hill, 47% of American voters supported the strike against Soleimani, while only 40% disapproved (sample size: 1,995 registered voters). Granted, not every American is a registered voter, but when it comes to election time, these are the people that matter the most.
The vast majority of people agreed with the Soleimani strike, even if Rose McGowan and Michael “Higher BMI than IQ points” Moore deeply apologize to the terror-supporting Iranians. This is because the vast majority of Americans DO NOT agree with these idiotic celebrities.
Now, when it comes to party lines, most people align roughly with what would be expected. Among Republicans, 73% identify as “conservative”, which ties the highest number in the last 25 years, while only 4% identify as “liberal”. 21% of Republicans also identify as “moderate”. For Democrats, 49% identify as liberal, 36% are “moderate” and 14% are “conservative”.
As far as Independents go, 45% identify as “moderate”, 30% are “conservative” and 21% are “liberal”.
41% of American men consider themselves “conservative”, 36% of men are “moderate” and 20% are “liberal”. 33% of women are “conservative”, 35% are “moderate” and 28% are “liberal”. If I had to guess at least one reason, even if not the biggest reason, for this disparity, I would guess that abortion would have to be a reason for it. Women are the ones who get pregnant after sex, so it stands to reason that there would be more liberal women than liberal men because liberal women do not want the responsibility of child-bearing and rearing. I’m not sure if this is the biggest reason for this disparity, but I think it’s at least one, fairly major, reason for it.
Looking at age, we find that those 18-29 tend to be more liberal than conservative (30-26% respectively), but not by all that much and the vast majority of them are moderate (40%). This makes a lot of sense to me. Plenty of young people naively support socialism and communism, so it stands to reason that more of them are more “liberal” than “conservative”, but the difference is not overwhelming. And it also makes sense that so many are “moderate” because younger people tend to try and find themselves and what they believe, not holding on to anything solid politically just yet, but discovering what they believe for themselves to be morally right (though morality is determined by God, but that’s an argument for another time).
Of course, I fall within this age range, being a Millennial, but I would consider myself to be solidly conservative (and I would hope all of my articles would reflect that). For people ages 30-49, 34% are “conservative” as opposed to 26% of “liberals”, with 37% being “moderate”. 50-64 age range, you find 42% “conservative”, 34% “moderate” and 21% “liberal”. 65+, you get 46% “conservative”, 29% “moderate” and 21% “liberal.”
This also makes sense, in my opinion. Winston Churchill is (perhaps falsely) attributed for saying: “If you aren’t a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative by 40, you have no brain.” We tend to be most liberal when we are young because our minds are not yet fully developed and we are more prone to act based on emotion rather than logic (which is why the Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16). Young people do not know the truths of the world, at least usually. They have to go out and discover them for themselves, which is why virtually no one takes the 17-year-old climate puppet seriously.
As one gets older, one would (hopefully) get wiser as well. If one obtains more knowledge as time goes on, one obtains more wisdom as well. We gain this through time and experience. Young people do not have the experience and wisdom that comes with age that older people do, so they tend to be a bit more liberal because being liberal means being more illogical (sorry to any liberal reading this, but the ideologies of socialism are a pipe-dream and not at all realistic or possible to achieve with zero negative consequence).
But moving on from age, we also find distinctions in levels of education. Those with a postgraduate degree are, to no one’s surprise, more liberal than conservative (36-26%, respectively) though an equal number of people to liberals are also “moderate”. Those who have graduated college find a shift, however, where 32% are “conservative”, 38% are “moderate” and 28% are “liberal”. Those with only “some college” education are 38% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 22% “liberal”. Those without any college education are 43% “conservative”, 33% “moderate” and 19% “liberal”.
I’ve said this countless times before and I’ll say it again: college is where logic goes to die. The effects of Marxism in college campuses are clear for all to see. This plays at least some role in the liberalism of young people, and a particularly big role in the socialist and communist romantization in young people’s minds. Despite the fact that communism is an ideology of death and destruction, it’s been romanticized by Marxist college professors seeking to mold young people’s minds the way that they want and create more and more Marxist puppets. How else can one come to find someone as economically illiterate as AOC having an economics degree?
The longer people subject themselves to college indoctrination, the more likely they are to come out the other side a mini-Lenin.
Regardless, next we find people with different incomes and something fairly surprising. Those who make $100,000 or more are 36% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 26% “liberal”. Income range from $40,000 to $100,000, you find 38% are “conservative”, 35% “moderate”, and 25% “liberal.” For those who make less than $40,000, you find 36% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 24% “liberal”.
This is interesting to me because of just how close together each of them is. The entire schtick of communism, at least as Marx put it, was all about class warfare and the “inequalities” of income between the proletariat and the bourgeoise. Of course, he was mostly talking about Germany and the U.K., not about the U.S., as it wasn’t a world superpower at the time, but still. For all the talks in communist circles about class warfare, the numbers seem to be roughly the same regardless of income. Actually, according to these numbers, you are more likely to be liberal if you make MORE money than less. This, I suppose, is where one would tend to find the term “limousine liberal” to make a lot of sense.
Regarding race, Non-Hispanic whites are 41% “conservative”, 33% “moderate” and 23% “liberal”. Non-Hispanic blacks are 23% “conservative”, 44% “moderate” and 28% “liberal”, which makes sense considering black people tend to vote Democrat (as self-destructive and damaging as that is for the black communities around the country). Hispanics are 35% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 25% “liberal”, which makes sense because Latinos tend to be more closely tied to the nuclear family (though plenty do also tend to vote Democrat, most likely because many are here illegally and the Democrats are the open borders party).
Finally, when it comes to region, you find that those living in the East are 32% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 28% “liberal.” In the Midwest, you find 38% “conservative”, 35% “moderate” and 23% “liberal”, which makes sense and aligns well with usual electoral maps. In the South, you find 41% “conservative”, 35% “moderate” and 21% “liberal”. And in the West coast, interestingly enough, you find 34% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 27% “liberal”.
That last one is interesting considering the West coast is often considered the “Left” coast because of the tendency of those states to vote Democrat. But there are a good number of farmers and land owners in those states, and farm and land owners tend to be conservative, even if the biggest population centers in those states are heavily liberal.
But regardless, it is interesting to note just how truly few people in this country actually would consider themselves “liberal”. There are far more conservatives and “moderates”, generally people who are “center-right” in this country than there are Leftists, even if what we often see and hear does not outright reflect that.
Again, Leftists need to be loud because they don’t have the numbers. They infect every organization they can to appear to be the mainstream and popular opinion, when that generally isn’t what they are. Most people are either conservative or at least do not agree with most, all, or even some liberal policies or ideologies. And I can only hope that the gap between conservative and liberal continues to grow, not only for the sake of the country, but also so that many might turn their lives over to Christ.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is not often that I write a piece targeting someone who is not inherently a Leftist, but if one were to watch a recent interview of Ann Coulter with Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover, one cannot help but take note of the fact Ann Coulter is simply not a conservative anymore (if she ever was in the first place).
In an interview last week, Margaret Hoover asked Coulter the simple question of what she thinks of Sen. Bernie Sanders and what if the lunatic socialist were to go back to his original position on illegal immigration (which is surprisingly conservative), what would Coulter do?
Ann was quick in saying that if Bernie Sanders took a more similar position on illegal immigration that Trump has (and Coulter believes Trump has completely backtracked on that, so that tells you something), she’d be willing to vote for him, might work for him and she doesn’t “care about the rest of the socialist stuff,” according to Coulter herself.
And THAT right there is the moment we can see Ann Coulter completely abandoning conservatism, hell, even CAPITALISM.
Now, I knew Ann Coulter had a few screws loose, but this is stunning. She seriously considers the issue of illegal immigration to be more important than everything else? HOW STUPID CAN SHE BE?!
I understand that the issue of illegal immigration is of top priority in this country, but MAINTAINING THIS COUNTRY AS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY SHOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT! Because guess what? If this country does turn socialist, we really won’t have an illegal immigration problem anymore. BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL WANT TO GET THE HELL OUT!
One idiotic argument the Left often brings up when talking about the Border Wall is that Germany built a wall in Berlin. Yeah, that was to KEEP PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNIST SIDE! It wasn’t to keep people out of East Berlin (the communist side), it was to keep those within East Berlin from getting out. And why would they want to get out?
BECAUSE OF THE SAME TYPE OF POLICIES BERNIE SANDERS WANTS TO IMPLEMENT HERE!
There is a reason so many people want to leave Latin American countries (be it legally or illegally) and come to the United States. The reason the Left often gives is that these people simply want a better life here in America. Gee, I wonder why they’d think they would have a better life in a CAPITALIST COUNTRY!
If socialism reigns supreme here, we’re screwed. Utterly and properly screwed. There is good reason Ronald Reagan once famously said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
If America is socialist, there is no other place to escape to. Sure, Israel is nice now, but with a socialist America that would likely support Iran, Israel is toast. A few European countries like Poland are nice, but the E.U. is globalist, or global communist if you will, and Poland is nowhere near superpower status.
If America is socialist, that’s all three world superpowers socialist or communist. If America is socialist, the same exact things that happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and all other socialist countries will happen here. All the despair, all the famine, all the death and destruction.
But we can be happy because we don’t have illegal immigrants pouring into our borders because they have no reason to leave one socialist hellhole for another. We may be left starving, struggling mightily, our economy collapsed, our healthcare system in shambles, and our people utterly screwed, but at least no more illegals, right?
This position is peak stupidity. Either that, or she hasn’t thought this through. And you know, I used to defend her when people called her stupid. I used to think they were completely wrong, particularly because at the time, she would defend mostly conservative stances. But she’s too far gone now and I can see she is either insanely stupid or insanely desperate for attention.
I can’t help but remember her tweets about “putting a fork in Trump” a few months into his presidency when it’d be unreasonable to believe he would’ve solved the world’s problems in a single moment. I can’t help but think back to the joke about “who doesn’t want him impeached?”
One either has to be seriously and properly moronic to think this way or be excruciatingly and pathetically starved for attention.
And despite how I might sound, I am not angry. I’m merely disappointed. And honestly, I feel sad for her. She is fixated on the issue of illegal immigration. And again, that is indeed an issue that ought to be at the forefront of everyone in Washington, with solutions at the ready to actually take care of the problem, not make it worse. But you do not throw the entire country towards the evil clutches of socialism for a singular issue.
There are more important issues at hand, namely things like abortion, in my opinion. You are free to disagree… for now. But even if I was promised that all abortion would end if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Even if I was promised that everyone could become Christians if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Namely because that would never actually happen. Immigration problems aren’t a thing in socialist countries because no one wants to go into one unless they plan to create trouble or to literally be terrorists. But as far as abortion and Christianity go, those two things would never be promised, much less delivered on, in a socialist country.
People aren’t considered people in socialist countries. Hell, people in the womb aren’t considered people here in America according to Roe and the Left. Why would I ever believe a socialist country would stop all abortions? Why would I believe they’d get people to convert to Christianity?
Much less the part about Christianity. Socialism is a system directly opposing Christianity. It replaces God with the government, or at least it tries to. It declares the government to have absolute power, absolute authority over everything. And since we know perfectly well that man is naturally evil, could you imagine a system where the government does this very thing? How horrible it’d be?
You don’t have to imagine it because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IN EVERY SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST COUNTRY!
Socialism and communism are adamantly anti-Christian. They hate the idea of a God being in control over everything including them. They think they ought to be the ones in control over everything. They think they should have the ability to tell you, a poor, uneducated and not-as-smart-as-them individual precisely what to do because you’re too stupid to figure it out on your own.
Socialism is a system the devil is in love with, as that is what he uses in Hell. To allow for America to become a socialist hellhole just to avoid illegals coming in is committing suicide for the country. Naturally, as I explained again and again in this article, a socialist country is not going to have illegal immigration problems. Who would want to go into a socialist country? Who would leave one to go to another that’s hundreds and thousands of miles away?
So while illegal immigration no longer becomes a problem, you have tiny, insignificant things like mass famines, no freedom, highest income inequality imaginable, destitution, man being brought to his knees and overall death. But thank the Lord Almighty we wouldn’t have illegals crossing the border.
That’s worth it, right?
Seriously, one cannot help but think Ann Coulter has utterly abandoned all semblance of not just conservatism or even capitalism, but sanity. But I honestly feel bad for the poor girl. The Left will never accept her because of her previous stances, and particularly because of her current stance on illegal immigration still being fairly conservative. And now, the Right won’t accept her because she’s completely abandoned it.
Fighting a two-front war is never a good idea. Now, that doesn’t mean I’ll start treating her like I do any other insane Leftist, but I really cannot consider her to be a conservative whatsoever. Not anymore.
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is rare for a sitting president to not be popular with their own party. One would have to be doing an embarrassingly poor job of leading the country for a president’s party to not like him or her. So it comes as no surprise at all that President Donald Trump is polling so well with Republicans.
In a recent Morning Consult poll that surveyed an impressive 53,408 registered voters who said they may vote in Republican primaries or caucuses in their state, 85% of them approved of the job Trump is doing as President, with that number having ticked up two percentage points in the last month.
According to the Washington Times: “Another 76 percent of the voters support Mr. Trump’s nomination, and that too has risen two percentage points in the past month.”
However, I would not be talking about this unless there was a good reason. It’s painfully obvious that a president’s party will almost certainly approve of the job he or she is doing. Even if their overall approval numbers aren’t great (which is not the case for Trump anyway), the president’s party will always likely support them.
This much is obvious, so just why am I talking about this? Because of something specific that the poll found.
According to the Washington Times: “The painstaking poll also gauges support for Mr. Trump rather than another GOP candidate – this among 27 different demographics. That support ranges from a low of 62 percent among moderate Republicans to a high of 91 percent among those who are ‘very conservative.’”
And THAT is what I want to focus on. Yes, it’s not something that should be unexpected, but it does tell us something very, VERY important about Trump and the way his base sees him: he’s pretty conservative.
Again, that’s not exactly breaking news, but it should be a sign for anyone who is still a NeverTrumper and considers themselves to be a conservative that the vast majority of those who consider themselves “very conservative” support Trump almost unanimously.
And this makes a whole lot of sense. For the most part, the only things NeverTrump Republicans can attack him for are personality traits and similar things. They will attack him as being a racist, as being a brute, as being an idiot, as being unsophisticated and unqualified for the job, as spending too much time on Twitter trolling or attacking people, etc.
In the meantime, they ignore the record-low unemployment rates, the great job creation numbers, the booming economy, the lower taxes, people’s bigger paychecks (unless they live in leftist states, for the most part), the deregulation that’s been in place since day one, the generational conservative judges at different levels of the courts, the pro-life policies, the near total destruction of ISIS, the progress made with North Korea towards denuclearization (which he’s taking the Reagan approach of not taking bad deals just to make a deal), and the progress being made towards building a wall and securing our border (which they continue to try and fight against).
Trump has been doing a tremendous job as President of the United States. And we easily could add far more to the list of his accomplishments (even still, all of that was off the top of my head) if the Republican Party elites weren’t trying to sabotage him. Had Paul Ryan not been House Speaker or if he had not been a RINO, Obamacare would be a thing of the past, we’d be way farther in the efforts to build the wall, and the House would likely not be Democrat right now.
Trump’s been vastly successful as President despite the 92% negative media coverage, despite the Democrat Party constantly making up bullcrap about him, namely the Russian collusion witch hunt, and despite the Republican establishment being so adamantly against Trump they are basically showing themselves to really be Democrats.
If the Republican establishment weren’t such scum, there’s no doubt Trump’s approval rating would be considerably higher still.
And yet, despite everything going against him, Trump is still massively popular with the Republican base, particularly with conservatives.
85% of those who are “extremely interested in politics” also support Trump, while 81% of those over 65 and 81% of rural Republicans also support him. Unfortunately, there is less support from him coming from Millennials, though it’s still not bad at 62%, while those not really interested in politics support him 64%.
78% of Republican men and 75% of Republican women also support the President and want him re-elected. Trump is also most popular in Alabama, Wyoming and West Virginia, while least popular in Vermont, California and Massachusetts.
In a different poll, a Des Moines Register poll of 400 Iowa Republican voters, we also see that 82% view Trump favorably.
Overall, Trump is, unsurprisingly, polling really well with Republicans, particularly with what constitutes the vast majority of the Republican base: conservatives.
And this sort of thing really should also be a warning sign for Republican Congressmen and women to not vote against the MAGA agenda.
Of the 12 Republican Senators that voted against Trump’s National Emergency declaration, I really don’t like 11 of them. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not a bad guy at all in my eyes, but I do think he made a pretty bad mistake here.
Supposedly, the reasoning behind voting against Trump’s national emergency is due to some precedent it could set for future Democrat Presidents. That’s entirely bogus, considering Obama was running the country like a freaking king while the Republican Party largely sat around picking their noses. They sure as heck didn’t care about what precedent Obama and the Democrats were setting, ruling the country like a kingdom, but now, when the national emergency declaration is used for a GOOD THING, it’s bad precedent?
What a load of crap. And I imagine many fellow conservatives feel the same way. The executive power of the national emergency is there and has been there since 1976. But NOW, when it’s being used in its arguably best and purest form for the best reason imaginable, that of deterring an INVASION, all of a sudden it’s bad precedent.
I agree that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 might grant too much power to the executive. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be passed every single day; they wanted it to be very difficult to pass laws and I agree. But THIS is not the hill to die on to make that argument. THIS is the best possible reason for having this power.
Protecting the country is a President’s VERY JOB. And that is exactly what this national emergency declaration seeks to do.
While I did not intend to go on so much of a tangent regarding the national emergency declaration, it does still fit into my overall argument: those who call themselves “very conservative” aka the vast majority of the Republican base tremendously supports the President. It makes no sense for any Republican to be against THIS particular national emergency declaration as this is not abuse of power, but optimal and proper use of it.
If Republicans were so concerned about precedent, they should’ve voted to build a wall when THEY HAD THE CHANCE! Of course, they didn’t want a wall, which is why we’re here today, but still. Rand Paul wants a wall and wants to secure the border, just not this way. Well, unfortunately, there are no other options left.
We conservatives support Trump. Those who do not will find themselves on the wrong side of political history here.
“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is safe to say that our current political climate has gone well-beyond toxic and entered the realm of violence. Not only are you not allowed to think a certain way, you will be punished for thinking a certain way. Anyone who utters a conservative thought, who dons a MAGA hat, who openly supports this country or their local GOP candidate is considered less than human, and thus, expendable.
Though we have not quite gotten to the point where we are outright killing each other Civil War-style, that certainly seems to be the direction we’re headed. Tensions aren’t being de-escalated, and it certainly doesn’t help that nut-jobs like Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters and many in the MSM, particularly CNN, encourage this violent behavior against the Right.
But here’s the thing: these Leftists, as unhinged, dangerous and evil as they might be, are also huge cowards.
Allow me to elaborate. One particular trend I’ve noticed as of late is that whenever there is violent confrontation between Leftists and Right-wingers, the Left had some sort of advantage. Be it strength in numbers, strength in weaponry, or simply physical strength against someone who is of the fairer sex.
Breitbart News has documented 603 acts of violence and/or harassment that the media has approved of thus far. But you can add another 2 to that list, since in Nevada, a Leftist operative of a Soros-funded organization physically assaulted the female Republican campaign manager for GOP gubernatorial nominee Adam Laxalt. According to the Daily Wire, this is the nut-job’s second time being arrested for assaulting a Republican woman.
The second would be a small Antifa group in Portland, OR, where I used to live, harassing and verbally accosting a 9/11 widow until a group of counter-protesters, some of whom were larger men than the “man” who accosted the widow, chased the small group away from the woman.
Looking over the rap sheet of acts of violence/harassment, we can see things like: Sen. Susan Collins being sent a letter filled with ricin to her home, a Republican candidate being sucker-punched in a Minnesota restaurant, a FEMALE Republican State Representative being assaulted in Minnesota, a female conservative reporter being threatened with rape by an elderly Leftist man (and feminists defending said man, even though we’re supposed to believe all women), CNN anchor Don Lemon defending the mob that chased Ted Cruz and his family out of a restaurant by saying the mob had the Constitutional right to do that (spoiler alert: they didn’t), and perhaps more prominently, a Leftist protester kicking a pro-life woman.
There are also other things, such as a Leftist attacking a Republican House candidate in Northern California with a switchblade, a Trump supporter being attacked by a punk rocker in one of the rocker’s own shows (and being kept from fighting back by the other attendees), and who could forget the shooting at a Virginia baseball practice that targeted Republicans and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital?
What many of these incidents have in common is that the Leftist attackers have the confidence to attack or harass someone. But when an equal or greater force meets these Leftists, they deflate like a badly baked soufflé. I’m sure you’ve seen some videos of Leftist thugs getting beaten up by counter-protesters. When things get a little too violent and the Left thinks they can take someone on, if they don’t have some sort of advantage, they completely fall apart and retreat.
Because at that point it’s either that or getting their butts kicked.
But the entire thing exposes these two things about the Left: 1) they are evil, otherwise they would never dare harass or attack someone for a petty reason like a political disagreement and 2) they are cowardly, only daring to take action when they feel they have some sort of advantage, be it a weapon, physical dominance over a woman, or strength in numbers.
Whenever we talk about gun control, the Left will always utter taunts like “why do you need a weapon? Are you just not manly enough?” which is especially rich considering that they heavily scrutinize any man that even remotely appears to do something manly, and considering the fact that many on the Left could easily be considered beta males.
But they utter such a taunt because they want to make gun-owners appear to be cowardly, hiding behind a gun. And yet, it is strictly the Left who uses guns to do a shooting. You will never see a conservative shooting up an establishment with the intention of killing Democrats. That’s something only the Left has been documented to do. Why? Because of the previously-listed reasons: they are evil and cowardly.
The Virginia baseball field shooter was reportedly shouting about healthcare. Instead of trying to win elections, he opted to simply exterminate the Republicans in Congress, or at least as many as he could. That is not only evil, but also massively cowardly.
As are the rest of Antifa and anyone who wants to pretend to fight for something worthwhile on the Left (of which there is nothing). They accost Right-wingers whenever they feel they have some sort of advantage. But at the first sign of equal or greater opposition, they become emasculated and retreat.
Now, if this were a war, that’d be understandable. Only someone with a death-wish would willingly throw themselves into a disadvantage. You attack when you feel you have some sort of advantage, for the most part. However, this is not war (yet) and these are not soldiers fighting for their country.
These are children who failed to grow up, at least mentally and emotionally, and pretend to fight fascism all-the-while employing the exact same tactics the Fascist black-shirts and the Nazi brown-shirts employed to gain power. These are not soldiers fighting the Taliban. These are children fighting law-abiding citizens who disagree with them. People who are simply trying to enjoy a meal, or walk down the street, or express their beliefs.
These are people that think they are expressing their beliefs by acting in the way they do. People who simultaneously deny others their right to free speech if that speech is different from their own.
Earlier, I mentioned Don Lemon saying these mobsters have a Constitutional right to do what they did to Ted Cruz and his family. To quote, here’s what he said: “… But that doesn’t mean that people don’t get to object. That’s your right as an American to object. It’s covered in the First Amendment… In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it in a restaurant, that you can’t do it on a football field. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it on a cable news – you can do it wherever you want.”
Aside from being a notorious racist, Don Lemon is also a massive moron. You can protest in public areas, but not in private property. You need the permission of the owner to protest in private property. But beyond arguing against such a stupid argument, let me take a step back here. THESE ARE NOT PROTESTERS! THESE ARE RAGE-FILLED MOBS CHASING PEOPLE OUT OF RESTAURANTS!
A peaceful protester will not accost someone. That goes against the definition of a peaceful protest. To call these people anything other than a mob is asinine. And I find it fascinating that Don Lemon thinks these people have the right to do this, but Ted Cruz and his family don’t have the right to enjoy a meal in a restaurant.
But anyway, that’s mostly just a tangent that I really wanted to cover here just to expose Don Lemon as the piece of crap that he is. A racist, a hypocrite and a massive moron.
Returning to the overall point, it becomes clear to anyone with eyes and a functioning brain that these “protesters” are nothing but a mob. That these people are evil and cowardly, only daring to get violent if they feel they have some sort of advantage.
Again, these are not soldiers. These are very privileged children who have yet to face reality. If there ever is another Civil War in this country, it will be a quick one.
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. No hidden fees. What you get it a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
This week has truly been devastating for the Left. With regards to Supreme Court matters alone, they faced loss after loss with 5-4 decisions on pro-life pregnancy centers no longer being forced to promote abortion and public sector unions no longer being able to force non-union-members to pay fees.
But both of those news are tame in comparison to hearing that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy would be retiring at the end of the Court’s annual term (end of June). This opens the door to President Donald Trump nominating another possible Constitutionalist like Gorsuch to the Court, handing conservatives a reliable majority in the Supreme Court.
Despite the fact that Justice Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan, he has proven to be wildly unpredictable, a moderate and often a swing voter in the Court alongside Chief Justice John Roberts.
He upheld Obamacare as Constitutional, was the key vote that legalized same-sex marriage and upheld women’s “right” to abortion in 1992.
He was a liberal in all but name. And now, Trump has the prime opportunity to nominate yet another Gorsuch and deal a major blow to decades of Leftist Justices getting their way. Of course, that includes such things as Obamacare, DACA, illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and states, same-sex marriage, and perhaps the single biggest issue: abortion.
Now, the White House has narrowed a list of over 20 picks down to 5. This list includes people like Brett Kavanaugh, Amul Thapar, Amy Barrett, Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge.
From what we know about them, while they all have voted conservatively in many issues, people like Kavanaugh and Hardiman have shown to be relatively moderate in other areas, with Kavanaugh upholding Obamacare in a couple of cases, saying that Obamacare penalties were actually “taxes” in one of those cases, and with Hardiman seemingly buckling to typical Leftist hysteria of racism and discrimination when he struck down a fire department’s residency requirement, which he termed “racially motivated” and went on record saying: “minority workforce representation that low suggests discrimination”.
So, in my mind, both Kavanaugh and Hardiman are too unreliable. The other three seem to be the most conservative, as well as true Constitutionalists who will stick with the written text in the Constitution, as well as the intentions of the people who wrote the Constitutional amendments, in their decisions rather than go with what they like or don’t like.
But in any case, most of these picks are true conservatives who will surely and seriously challenge the horrendous 1973 Roe v. Wade case that has resulted in 60.5 million abortions since 1973 in the U.S.
Successfully criminalizing abortion will likely be Trump’s lasting achievement, particularly since Court justices can serve for an entire generation or even more depending on their age. Gorsuch’s selection has already solidified a relatively conservative Court for decades to come. This will further solidify a conservative Court, leaving Roberts as the last swing voter, who has occasionally shown to be conservative himself. Add that to the fact that the two oldest Justices in the Court are liberals (Ginsburg, 85, and Breyer, 79) and you could potentially replace those two at some point at the end of Trump’s second term or beginning of Pence’s first term. Almost certainly by the end of Pence’s second term and most definitely by the beginning of Ivanka’s first term.
Jokes aside, it cannot be overstated how massive this is for America. For life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While a Presidential election will only guarantee a political side’s success for 4 years, and midterm elections for 2 years, whoever’s side gets to pick a new Supreme Court Justice could influence the country for decades.
Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court will almost certainly guarantee a very conservative Court for the next half century. This means that almost regardless of who wins elections in the next ten to twenty years, the Supreme Court will likely maintain the Constitution even in the case of a President Bernie Sanders (which will almost certainly never happen).
Now, with these news comes yet another reason for conservatives to vote in the November mid-term elections. Securing a Republican majority, or perhaps even a supermajority, as I think will occur, means that for the next two years, we will have one of the most conservative Presidents in history, a very solidly pro-Trump and conservative Congress and a very conservative Supreme Court for decades to come.
Man, if I were a liberal, I’d be panicking right now. I suppose the only thing that has kept them from completely running amok (yes, it can get worse) is the hope that Democrats might be able to take back the House at the very least. But if and perhaps when Republicans not only retain Congress but add more seats to amount to a supermajority, the Left might honestly panic and start another Civil War.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t put it past them to do it again. If the situation I describe becomes reality, the Left will be at its most powerless it has ever been. They might panic and do something stupid.
Not to compare this situation to a video game I know, but I will draw a fair comparison anyway. There’s this video game series titled Fallout, in which you play as a character in a post-nuclear war America set hundreds of years from now. In this series, America is utterly devastated by nukes after a war over resources with Communist China. According to the game’s lore, China invaded Anchorage, Alaska in search for oil and the U.S. counter-attacked, eventually invading main-land China. While it is unclear exactly what caused the Chinese to launch nukes at the U.S., it was most likely out of desperation to try to win an unwinnable war.
Now, what the heck does a game have to do with a real life situation? Like the Chinese Communists, the Left might feel cornered and trapped and feel as though they need to explore extreme situations to try and fight back. If they feel they don’t really have much to lose, the Left might go to any extreme necessary to try and reclaim the country they believe is theirs. Ironically, in the video game series, launching nukes wound up destroying China as well. This could also be the fate of the Democrat Party.
In resorting to desperate measures far worse than the incivility we’re already witnessing, the Democrat Party might well see itself destroyed.
Of course, the ideologies won’t die until God has destroyed the world, but the major political party of the Left might well cease to exist in the near future.
Regardless, that’s not what I want to take away from the retirement of Justice Kennedy. While it’s still something to be aware of, as of right now, I just want to delight in the fact that horrible Leftist cases decades-old will likely face their biggest and toughest challenge yet.
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the bigger news pieces over this past week has been the racially-charged tweet sent out by Roseanne directed at former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
In a response to a story about WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange exposing Obama’s CIA for having “spied on French presidential candidates”, Roseanne tweeted: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj.”
This caused a massive stir, with ABC eventually cancelling the reboot to her show.
Eventually, Roseanne apologized for the tweet multiple times, but wound up deleting those tweets as well, for some reason.
Now, due to ABC cancelling the show, many conservatives have taken to defend her and her tweet, which is not advisable. That tweet was wrong and in poor taste. I know the Left constantly does the same, with examples such as comparing Trump to a baboon in more than just his supposed lack of intelligence, ESPN’s Keith Olbermann tweeting out a series of curse words at Trump, calling him a Nazi, and Joy Behar repeatedly attacking Christians.
I know full well how sick and depraved these people are. Which is precisely why I’m not too surprised to see Roseanne Barr tweeting such a racist tweet.
I know that in recent time, she has shown to have a bit more sensibility than other liberals. Personally, I tend to refer to Roseanne as the Yogi Bear of liberals – she’s smarter than the average liberal.
But at the end of the day, that is precisely what she is: a liberal.
Throughout the first iteration of her show, she would constantly promote abortion, gay marriage and everything liberals promote. That didn’t change in the reboot, with the family showcasing a crossdressing boy as part of their family.
The only reason I say Roseanne is smarter than the average liberal is because she supports Trump. But that isn’t a license to say something as terrible as comparing Valerie Jarrett (don’t misunderstand, I don’t like her either) to a monkey, or something to that extent.
She supports Trump, and that’s great! She understands a good deal more about America than many other Hollywood liberals. But she isn’t a conservative.
She once ran for President as a socialist, she has wished ill of Christians who eat at Chic-Fil-A, willingly butchered the National Anthem prior to a baseball game and asked Jimmy Kimmel if he wanted “Pence for the friggin’ president”, as to say that she wouldn’t want him to be POTUS any more than the crying "comedian".
She excuses her National Anthem performance as saying she “was trying to be respectful”, claims her tweet about Christians and Chic-Fil-A was meant to raise awareness about the health risks of eating fast food and now, with this latest scandal, blames her Ambien prescription for her words.
She fits the profile of any other limousine liberal out there, aside from her support of Trump. But, for some reason, it’s that support for the President that has conservatives backing her up and supporting her.
Don’t get me wrong, I find it interesting and endearing that Roseanne Barr, of all people, would support Trump. But that isn’t an excuse for her behavior, and it never should be.
ABC was right to fire her, since they are her employer and free speech can be limited by your employer. If you were to say something that egregious and your employer found out, you shouldn’t be surprised if consequences ensue.
And yes, we can mention the NFL in all this, and call out the Left’s hypocrisy over celebrating Roseanne’s firing while decrying outrage over the NFL’s Anthem policy being restrictive of the First Amendment. But my take is that, in both cases, the employer was in the right. They have the power to do those things.
The First Amendment of the United States protects us from being prosecuted by the government. It protects our ability to speak freely without fearing incarceration. But the First Amendment does not protect an employee from their employer. Many times, the NFL banned players choosing to express their thoughts. They have banned a player from wearing pink cleats in honor of his deceased mother because it wasn’t Breast Cancer Awareness month. They banned a player from wearing cleats that honored the victims of 9/11.
They may be jerk moves, but they have the right to do that. Likewise, they have the right to ban kneeling during the Anthem (which, by the way, the NBA has even stricter rules regarding that). Similarly, ABC has the right to cancel and fire Roseanne for that disgusting tweet.
Now, in her apologies, I do believe she was being sincere. I’m not flat-out saying we should throw her under the bus and character assassinate her. That’s a job for the Left to try to do, even if it’s to one of their own. But her behavior can’t simply be excused because of her support for Trump.
Now, I know what you may be thinking: “this guy is abandoning his core values! He doesn’t believe in freedom of speech!” Relax, I’m not abandoning anything. I’m certainly not turning against my Christian conservative beliefs. I’m simply pointing out that Roseanne tweeted something bad and her employer has the right to deliver a consequence they see fit.
Don’t get me wrong, ABC is still a pile of garbage, and all of the Left has tweeted and said far worse things about Trump and conservatives than what Roseanne said. But, like I said, the First Amendment doesn’t protect anyone from their employer.
She still has the right to have said what she said, and people have the right to either attack or defend her. I won’t necessarily attack her myself, but the point needs to be made clear: Roseanne is still a clear-cut liberal. She’s been learning in recent time, as evidenced by her support for Trump, but she still holds many Leftist ideologies, which were clear in even the reboot of her show.
Like I said earlier, I believe her apologies were sincere. She made a mistake and apologized for it, even if she was also blaming prescription drugs for it. So I do think she deserves another shot with her show, but she needs to have learned this lesson here and now.
What’s the lesson? A couple of things, really. First, the First Amendment protects you from government action, not employer action. Second, her liberal values are partly responsible for her words, since racism and hatred are rooted in the Left. Third, the Left’s double-standard is crystal clear. You can only say egregious things about conservatives, not liberals.
They celebrate Michelle Wolf for her disgusting “jokes” about Sarah Sanders while destroying Roseanne for her disgusting “joke” about Valerie Jarrett.
This is a very teachable moment: the Left believes they are the only ones who can say disgusting things. Even then, they can only be said at the expense of their political opponents.
The reason I mention this is because it should send a clear message to Roseanne: abandon your liberal ideologies. They’ve only ever brought misery and pain to people. Abortion means death, gay marriage is sinful, weed is self-destructive and stupid, transgenderism is a mental disease and there is only one Lord God Almighty, who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Supporting Trump is a good first step. It means that she has been thinking a little bit about what Obama has done to this country. Hopefully, she will continue thinking more as time goes by and eventually finds Christ.
I don’t see any reason to support her words or actions. They were pretty bad, to say the least. It’s clear that she is still very much a liberal, but that can change. I know that many of you reading this might support Roseanne Barr and might be angry with me. That is fine, you are free to do so. But I ask that you consider reason here. Why support Roseanne for what she said? Why support her for being fired over that tweet? Just because she supports Trump? Trump isn’t the be all, end all of the conservative movement. He’s its current face and leader, for certain, but the movement will continue long after he ceases to be President and eventually goes to Heaven.
Just supporting Trump doesn’t give license for people to do bad things. On contraire, it usually means that people are considerate enough and smart enough to know between right and wrong. Liberals have a very warped sense of right and wrong, as you have clearly seen.
The distinction must be made between a Trump supporter and a conservative. Trump supporters tend to be conservatives, and most of them are, but not always. Conservatives tend to be supportive of Trump, and most are, but not always, for some baffling reason.
Roseanne may be a Trump supporter, but she’s no conservative. Not even close.
“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In recent time, I’ve been surprisingly speaking positively about California, or at least the citizens of California. About a week ago, I had spoken about the possibility of California being split up into three different states with their own governing bodies.
And more good news keep coming from one of the least likely places.
A survey, surprisingly conducted by UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society (by the name alone, you can tell how Leftist they are), showed that there was strong support for some of Trump’s immigration agenda in even the state’s most left-leaning areas.
“About 24 percent of the survey’s participants said it’s ‘very important’ for the U.S. to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, while 35 percent said it’s ‘somewhat important,’ according to the poll. That viewpoint even held true in the Bay Area, were 25 percent of those surveyed said increasing deportations is very important and 35 percent said it’s somewhat important.”
“And about 49 percent of Californians support temporarily banning people from Muslim-majority countries, according to the poll. In the Bay Area, 44 percent of residents support the ban, the least out of any region in California.”
When you put together the number of people who think it’s very or somewhat important to increase deportations, that number equals 59%, meaning 59% of the people surveyed wanted an increase in deportations.
Need I remind you that this is CALIFORNIA?!
And like I mentioned in the title, that’s not all. The report says that 49% of Californians support the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries.
58% said that increasing taxes on corporations would hurt or make no difference to the California economy.
54% said the government should play a minor role or no roll at all in reducing income inequality.
Only 54% of Californians have a positive view of Muslims (I say only because, again, this is California. You’d think that number would be at least decently higher).
“73% of Californians hold positive views toward Asian Americans; 73% say that members of the group are intelligent”, which is honestly kind of funny and kind of racist when you think about it. One major stereotype of Asian people is that they are super smart or at least very good at math. So for this number to come out is actually kind of funny.
They also have numbers about views on Latinos (75% positive) and their intelligence (57% think they’re intelligent), as well as African Americans (70% positive) and 51% think they’re intelligent, and white people (69% positive, which is not surprising that it’s lower than the others, but still decently high) with 59% saying they think white people are intelligent.
Now, it’s not all fantastic news. 79% support a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, 66% reject the idea of a wall as a priority, and 68% say big businesses and corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes (and yes, I, as well as UC Berekely, recognize the paradox with that and the statistic saying 58% think raising taxes on corporations hurts or doesn’t affect the state economy).
But all of these things were already expected out of California. With the way the media and the Democrats paint DREAMers, I’m not surprised at the support for them.
It’s all the other numbers that are the real story here. They’re absolutely mind-blowingly in support of things that Trump is looking to do or at least what conservatives want. Let me remind you that Trump lost California by 29 points. So it’s really fantastic to see these numbers.
But we’re not done sharing good news.
“Nearly half of Californians (45%) report that being Christian is an important part of being American”, “73% think that blending into larger society is an important part of being American” and “88% think speaking English is important”.
Let me remind you also that California is the nation’s only sanctuary state. A state that happily welcomes illegal immigrants and shields them from the Trump administration seeking to impart justice upon them.
I’m particularly surprised at the number of people who think being Christian is important to being an American. I have all but given up on the state in terms of Christianity. I believe I’ve even gone so far as to say that it’s a sort of Sodom 2.0.
That certainly was my view, at the very least.
Now, I’m not saying that things will immediately improve for the state. If they hope things will improve, they will first have to get rid of Gov. Jerry Brown. Thankfully, this is Brown’s assured final term as Governor because he’s ineligible to run for re-election this November thanks to term limits in the California Constitution (Brown has been Governor of California since 2011 and was also Governor from 1975 to 1983).
But that won’t really matter if California elects another socialist Democrat, so conservatives in California will have to vote either for a conservative candidate (say, Travis Allen, who boasts about having voted for Trump, according to the LA Times) or will have to vote to split up the state in three ways.
Regardless, that will be left for Californians to deal with in the Fall. It’s up to them to decide what kind of future they will have.
But all things considered, I’m actually pretty happy to see some of those numbers. For as far-Left as the media, Hollywood, and the California government paint the state, the people there are seemingly a good deal more conservative than we give them credit for.
I’m reminded of jokes people would make at California’s expense, such as when Trump says we should build a wall, we should also build it along California’s national border, not just the international border; or when Kim Jong-un would threaten to blow up the country, people would joke that California should be target practice for him.
When making those jokes, obviously, people would think about the Hollywood liberals and the Leftists running the state into the ground. It’s easy to forget that there are plenty of conservatives there as well, at least living outside of the big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and others.
Even I had forgotten about them, when I believed California had long reached a point of no return. But all is seemingly not lost. Yes, the Left has a stronghold in California, but the people there are seemingly waking up.
Which is honestly not a surprise, really. The Left’s policies are always detrimental for everyday people. You can put as much sugar on crap as you want, but at the end of the day, it’s still crap.
I think people are beginning to realize this, given these numbers. Don’t misunderstand, they are still very Left-leaning in other areas. I didn’t see anything about abortion or “sexual identity” in the survey, and even in some things, most people still responded with Left-leaning answers.
But considering how far gone I had naively come to believe California was, I’d say these are pretty good news. I’m just hoping that this trend away from socialism continues to grow and people can Make California Great Again.
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Recently, at a meeting with members of Congress discussing measures to strengthen student security after the most recent school shooting that left 17 people dead, Trump made some comments that have sent conservatives for a loop and NeverTrump Republicans to shout “See! I told you he was no conservative!” I will carefully explain just why that’s an idiotic statement in a moment, but first, I’ll share the concerning comments made by the POTUS.
“I don’t want mentally ill people to be having guns. You have to do something very decisive. Number one, you can take the guns away immediately from people that you can adjudge easily are mentally ill, like this guy. You know, the police saw that he was a problem, they didn’t take any guns away. Now, that could have been policing. I think they should have taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not. But I’ll tell you this, you have to have very strong provisions for the mentally ill.”
This isn’t the only thing that had conservatives worried, but let’s focus on this for now. You can clearly see why conservatives sort of panicked over this. I won’t lie, that’s a pretty Leftist comment. Taking away someone’s gun without due process is the stuff of fascists.
I can understand conservatives’ worries here. Who’s to determine if someone is mentally ill? There’s nothing to stop any Leftist from calling me mentally ill and wanting to take away my weapons. But, again, I’ll soon get to the reason why I’m not too worried about this.
First, let’s continue with the other comments that have made conservatives worried and Democrats like Diane Feinstein show more excitement than she ever has in her entire life.
At one point, Vice President Mike Pence said that Republicans in Congress want legislation that could allow for friends and family to apply to a court to suspend 2nd Amendment rights for someone who’s dangerously mentally ill and mentioned that, with that sort of due process, the rights given to us by the 2nd Amendment would not be infringed.
Trump stepped in by saying: “Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court. Because that’s another system, because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
Now, Tom Maguire, a conservative pundit, has one explanation that may make some sense of this.
Tom wrote on his twitter account that: “On Trump’s no ‘due process’ quote: IMHO he misunderstood/misstated Gun Violence Restraining Order. Procedure is Court Order Confiscation Hearing to end or extend order. Trump conflated hearing with ‘due process.’”
So that offers some plausible explanation as to what Trump intended to say.
Again, I can understand conservatives’ worries over this sort of statement. It’s also a rather Leftist statement. What he’s talking about here would be the stepping stone towards turning this country into a socialist nation where people don’t have gun rights, or very restricted gun rights. You start by taking guns away from mentally ill people, then from “mentally ill” people (and I’m sure you know what I mean by that) and then from just people. I’ll be the first to say that it’s a very dangerous proposal.
Then Trump joked when talking about the NRA. He begins by saying: “I’m a fan of the NRA. There’s no bigger fan… These are great people. These are great patriots; they love our country. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. It doesn’t make sense… I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun, but I can get [a long weapon] at 18. So I was just curious as to what you (he points to a Republican lawmaker) did in your bill.” The Republican replied: “We didn’t address it, Mr. President.”
Trump then joked by saying: “It’s because you’re afraid of the NRA, right?”
Again, that’s a bit worrying, but should be less so because it was very clearly a joke. Much as he joked that he hoped the Russians would find Hillary Clinton’s emails. The Left massively overreacted over that and actually theorized that he asked the Russians to hack into our elections. With this joke, I’ll take it for what it is: a joke. I’m not going to go the Ben Shapiro route and pretend it’s more than it is by saying: “Trump proceeded to rip on the National Rifle Association, and suggest that Republicans were in their thrall – just as Democrats have been maliciously claiming for years.”
He’s not suggesting a darn thing, he’s making a joke.
Then, Rep. Steve Scalise (yes, the same one that was in critical condition after a shooting targeting Republican lawmakers) said that the bill he’s proposed contains a concealed carry reciprocity statute. Trump said: “I think that that bill may someday pass, but it should pass as a separate bill. If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ballgame. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill… If you add concealed carry to this bill, you’ll never get it passed.”
Yet, Ben Shapiro took it to mean that Trump “dumped all over the idea of concealed carry reciprocity…” which is not the case at all. You heard Trump say that he’s with Scalise on the idea, but he’s concerned over the likelihood of that bill passing with that particular statute. Now, given that Republicans own Congress, it should theoretically pass if it’s a conservative bill. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen with the Establishment RINOs.
So Trump knows, after a year in office and trying to get things passed, that there are some things that are not too likely to get passed by GOP Establishment Congressmen. Now, typically, as with taxes, Republicans tend to be conservative about guns. But it makes sense that Trump might be doubtful of the bill’s success with that particular statute in it. Again, he’s not “dumping all over the idea”. He’s just trying to look at how likely it is to get passed in Congress and isn’t too sure about the likelihood that it will pass.
Now, taking everything that was said, I can understand if Trump supporters are confused and concerned over this. Here’s where I make my best attempt to give you peace of mind.
Over this past year, Trump has been one of the most conservative Presidents of all time. That’s in both policy and what he has said. Yes, this latest “mess” paints him in a Leftist light, but his record as President paints him entirely different.
I’ve seen some comments made on Twitter. One person said that Trump was always a “closet Democrat”. Well, if he’s a closet Democrat, he’s the worst Democrat the world’s ever seen. His track record as President shows very conservative. So he’s either the worst liberal of all time or he’s a very solid conservative. I’ve actually replied to the gentleman that made that comment and he replied by mentioning the “policy that conservatives around him are making.” As though Trump’s accomplishments aren’t his own.
I replied by pointing out his flawed logic here. So you’re saying he’s not a conservative because it’s the conservative people THAT HE APPOINTED that are making the policy? If he’s not a conservative, why would he appoint conservatives to his cabinet and to advise him? And don’t try to point to Ivanka and Jared being Democrats. Of course they’re going to advise him, THEY’RE HIS FAMILY! Besides, when all is said and done, I highly doubt that Ivanka and Jared will remain Democrat. The Party has already turned on them and their former friends in the media have attacked them as well.
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s honestly incredibly stupid and dangerous to overreact to this. Yes, what he said sounded pretty Leftist, but 99% of the time, he sounds pretty conservative. And 100% of the policy he’s enacted as President has been conservative.
If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have signed the tax bill into law. If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t support the NRA.
If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have proposed ARMING some school teachers.
If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord.
If he wasn’t conservative, he wouldn’t have ended over a thousand regulations on businesses.
If he wasn’t a conservative, he wouldn’t have nominated a conservative judge to serve on the Supreme Court.
And if he wasn’t a conservative, he wouldn’t be the most pro-life President in recent time, having enacted executive order after executive order to stop using U.S. tax payer dollars to pay for International Planned Parenthood with the Mexico City policy.
By the way, he signed that executive order THREE DAYS after he was inaugurated.
No, those comments didn’t sound conservative at all. I’ll hold Trump accountable for that. But I’m also not going to overreact and demand his resignation over this. These comments shouldn’t automatically trump every other conservative action he made and conservative speech he gave. Do I think it was a mistake for Trump to have said that? Absolutely! Does this make me support Trump any less? Not really. Unless he actually did the things he talked about regarding taking a mentally ill person’s gun away without due process, I’m not going to freak out.
Again, his track record is that of a very conservative President. Reagan wished he could’ve had as good a track record by this point in his own presidency. Besides, and I’ve said this countless other times, he’s not an idiot. He knows that to break away from his base will mark the end of his administration. He knows that turning Leftist isn’t going to make the Democrats like him. The Democrats already have their minds set about him. They think he’s a racist, sexist, sexual assaulter who cheated in the election. Nothing he does will earn him their respect, and neither should he try to get it.
To try to get the Democrats to like you as a Republican is a fool’s errand. The media will still trash him, the Democrats still oppose him and he would lose the only people that supported him throughout all the b.s. he’s had to endure so far.
Truthfully, had he said this earlier in his administration, I would be far more concerned. In the beginning, he was a wildcard. We didn’t know what we would get out of him. All we knew is that he offered something far better than Hillary. Had he done this earlier in his administration, I would’ve thought he had conned us, as the Left keeps trying to convince us he did. But this past year has shown me that, even if he’s not an ideological conservative the way you and I are, his instincts and actions SHOUT conservatism.
Yes, he made a mistake in saying all of that. What he said was very dumb. But those kinds of words aren’t enough to make me believe he’s not a true conservative. We’re far enough into his presidency to understand what kind of President he is. He wants action and he wants to take care of things himself. As a businessman of a private company, he had all the power to make decisions by himself. He’s used to being in charge. As President, he’s in charge but he’s, thankfully, limited in power.
I’m not saying he wants to have the power of a dictator. I’m saying he’s more used to handling things pretty much on his own. If there’s a problem, he wants to be the guy to fix it. History has shown us that it’s a bad thing for the government to be in charge of everything. He often attacked D.C. for being inefficient, and he was right. But being efficient isn’t the same as being in charge of every single thing that happens in this country. You can have an efficient government and a powerful government without it being very big at all.
If there’s anything I can say that Trump needs to improve on is this: he needs to learn that the government shouldn’t be taking care of everything. “Government’s first job is to protect the people, not run their lives”, as Reagan once said. I’m not saying Trump wants to run people’s lives. I’m saying he needs to learn that there are a lot of things the government shouldn’t be very involved in. I like his proposal to arm school teachers, but that really should be it in terms of gun law changes (except maybe making it easier to get a gun).
Regardless, knowing Trump, he’ll learn from this. He knows not to abandon his base, for that will only cause his base to abandon HIM. I have no doubt, given his track record so far, that he’ll continue to be a very conservative President.
I believe God put him in the White House for a good reason. I doubt that Trump will turn Leftist in terms of anything regarding policy.
“’For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.’”
Author: Freddie D. Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...