As much as the Left pretends there is no such thing as “cancel culture” (and we will see momentarily why it is that they say this), there really is no denying its existence. If anyone says something deemed “offensive” by people who have some amount of power – be it executive power or the power of pressure – that person runs the risk of being financially and professionally punished for sharing such opinions.
There were calls to have Houston Rockets’ GM Daryl Morey fired for sharing a pro-Hong Kong image on Twitter. Whenever a celebrity says something even remotely outside the lexicon allowed by the Left, that celebrity faces incredible pressure to take back what they said, and if they refuse, are threatened with financial repercussions, such as losing business deals. A good example of this is J.K. Rowling, who supposedly is “anti-trans” for sharing beliefs that do not align with the gender-dysphoric nutjobs, but she refuses to cave to the mob, and so, has lost business deals for publications for her popular Harry Potter books.
Now, J.K. Rowling has enough money that she doesn’t really have to worry about this. Even if no publisher will ever be willing to print another copy of her series, no book store – online or physical – be willing to sell her books, and no Hollywood studio ever be willing to work with her again or sell more digital or physical copies of the movies, essentially making it impossible for Rowling to profit off of her popular series, she has enough money to be entirely financially independent. She is, for all intents and purposes, uncancellable.
However, most people do not have Rowling money. Most people don’t have “screw the mob” money. Most people have to work five or more days a week, for 8 hours or more a day, in order to make a living. Most people need to be able to work and cannot afford to step out of line, saying or doing something that someone, be it an executive or a lowly intern, might find offensive, and risk losing their job as a result of it.
I’ve heard stories of people being practically interrogated by their employers for NOT sharing the black square on social media as part of a Black Lives Matter movement event. It’s no longer sufficient to simply be quiet about something, or not expressing one’s own views if they run contrary to the Leftist-approved narrative (and this explains why Leftists were making slogans like “silence is violence”). People are literally not allowed to be silent on an issue and must express the Leftist view, regardless of if they actually agree with it, otherwise they can be considered violent enemies.
There are also countless stories of people, such as media personalities, being fired or being threatened with termination for saying “all lives matter”, as though that is an extremely offensive term that is incorrect (though I do legitimately think the Left does not believe that all lives matter, and in fact, KNOW they don’t believe this, considering they are willing to kill babies in the womb and are willing to incite violence and terror against conservatives).
It’s no wonder, then, that Cato Institute found that nearly two-thirds of Americans (62%) believe they cannot safely express their views in fear of some form of retaliation.
According to Cato: “62% agree ‘the political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive.’”
It’s more than just worrying people might find something offensive. If it stopped at that, nowhere near as many people would agree with this. It’s the fact that the “offended” party might retaliate in some form or another, often involving HR or the individual’s higher-ups, and get the individual punished for “offending” someone. And these punishments range anywhere from relatively mild suspensions to outright terminations from the companies.
And looking at things in terms of political demographics, one can see just who is more likely to be comfortable expressing their opinions and who is more likely to want to self-censor.
According to the poll, 58% of “strong liberals” believe they are free to speak their minds. In other words, uber-progressive, communist liberals believe they can say what they want without fear of repercussions (and this is one of the reasons why Leftists say there is no cancel culture – they hardly experience it). This stands in STARK contrast to everyone else, including even more moderate liberals.
According to the survey, 52% of liberals believe they have to self-censor, with 64% of moderates and 77% of conservatives agreeing with this notion.
Like I said, it no longer is enough to just be quiet on something. One must express the uber-Leftist view on everything. This, naturally, leads even more moderate liberals, those who might vote for people like Biden but don’t agree with the idea of defunding the police (because it is an asinine proposal) or destroying our economic system in order to fight a naturally-occurring event of climate change, to self-censor in fear of retaliation from people further Left.
And, of course, it’s not at all surprising to see conservatives being so willing to self-censor. I have mentioned this in various places, but the pillars of power in this country are largely owned by the Left. Conservatives stand in complete contrast to the Left, and so, are viewed as the natural enemies, and the out-of-power conservatives can only hope to not get in trouble by not expressing their beliefs.
Even objective, apolitical FACTS are cause for someone’s termination, such as in the case of Stephen Hsu, who was forced to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation at Michigan State University after he shared a research paper (from the university itself) that found police were not more likely to shoot African-Americans than other races of people.
It’s a straight-up FACT that police are not more likely to shoot and kill African-Americans and last year, more unarmed white people were killed than unarmed black people. And yet, for sharing the findings of a research paper from the university itself and sharing facts about it, he was punished for sharing “scientific racism” and running contrary to the BLM movement and the Left.
Simply stating the fact that there are only two genders can get someone fired. Simply stating the fact that there is no man-made climate change can get someone fired or punished at some capacity, particularly for climate scientists. Simply stating that Trump is OUR PRESIDENT can get someone fired.
If you want any more proof that the Left does not operate using facts, there it is. Stating facts, if they run contrary to the Leftist narrative, has the possibility to get someone fired.
What’s more, the Cato Institute survey found that 50% of Strong Liberals support firing people who donate to Trump, while 36% of Strong Conservatives support firing people who donate to Biden.
I have a couple of things to say about this.
First, I am not surprised by that number from “strong liberals”. They are extremely intolerant and openly supporting Trump is seen as a crime against humanity itself, let alone making a donation to Trump.
Second, I do not see the Strong Conservatives as being equally or remotely as intolerant as the Strong Liberals, not simply because of the disparity in numbers; I see this as Strong Conservatives being willing to use cancel culture, a weapon designed by the Left, against the Left itself.
If a conservative can be made to suffer because of cancel culture, there is ZERO reason not to use it against the Left. As I have stated before, conservatives not using cancel culture against the Left is like someone refusing to use their gun in a duel, or like a side of a war refusing to fire against their attackers.
Think of cancel culture used by conservatives as a gun: we use it as a self-defense method.
Unlike a gun, however, I don’t exactly like cancel culture. Ideally, no one would be punished for sharing their beliefs – except maybe for communists, and we currently have in the law books the Communist Control Act of 1954, which outlawed the Communist Party of the United States and “prevents communists from holding office in labor organizations” according to MTSU. While many of the provisions of this act were eventually repealed, I think we should bring it back with full force to outlaw communist from serving in Congress and all types of offices.
Ideally, people should be free to express themselves without fear of retaliation, but we live far from an ideal world for a variety of reasons, chief among which is our very nature as human beings, which is evil.
So, since we do not live in an ideal world, we have to do certain things which are not exactly pretty. Such things include using cancel culture, which is largely awful, against the Left, since they have no trouble at all using it against us and it’s asinine not to fight back when one is at war if one wishes to not be defeated.
At any rate, we can clearly see the sort of damage cancel culture itself causes to people who simply want to live their normal lives, largely unplug from politics, and do honest work for a living – paying their bills and providing for themselves and their families.
People want to be able to go to their places of work without having to worry about what they say or do on their social media during their off-hours. People want to be able to freely express their support for either the Democrat or Republican presidential candidates, or simply abstain from engaging in these discussions, without being worried about being punished for it in terms of their finances or even their very employment.
I hope we can one day return to a time when people didn’t have to worry about this stuff. That time, however, will have to be after this cultural war of ours is over and the good guys have won.
One final note about this that I wish to quickly make is that this Cato poll really shines quite the light about other political polls. If so many people are afraid to be honest with their beliefs, exactly how many of those people do you think honestly answered a pollster who asked them who they plan to support in this election?
Just saying, this is another possible reason for Trump to supposedly be “behind” Biden in the polls, particularly by as many points as he supposedly is (apart from the fact that these pollsters always under-sample Republicans and conservatives).
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”
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.”
Much as that might sound like the beginning to a punchline of a joke, this is what happened earlier this week as the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments regarding whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to transgenders in the workplace.
On one side are the progressive uber-Leftists who are trying to force the transgender agenda down Americans’ throats and on the other, we find conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders fighting back against it.
You know an issue is particularly important and major if conservatives and lesbian feminists are fighting ON THE SAME SIDE.
While the Supreme Court Justices were hearing oral arguments inside the High Court, on the steps of the building were demonstrators and protesters on both sides of the issue, each trying to make their case in public.
Walt Heyer is one of these people, making his case against the transgender agenda. And while nutcase Leftists might try and pin him as a transphobe or a sexist or what-have-you, there is particular reason to hear his testimony: he, himself, used to be a transgender woman (biological male to female).
Heyer recounted: “It all started when I was four-years-old and my grandmother started crossdressing me and I enjoyed it very much. But that crossdressing started a confusion within me about who I was. And it was in 1944, before we had any words like gender dysphoria. I was just a confused kid that was being affirmed by my grandmother who actually caused me to have this tremendous confusion, which started this journey to transgenderism.”
Heyer said that he uncovered the truth about his life when he began studying to become a counselor: “I wanted to be a therapist. So I studied at U.C. Santa Cruz and realized in studying the books in the stacks that people who identified with gender identity disorder had mental disorders. And I thought we’re not approaching this from the right direction. We need to be addressing the co-morbid problems that are causing people to believe they’re a different gender. It seems to be compassionate to me to reach out to those people and actually guide them in the right direction and not fill their bodies with hormones and cut body parts off and rearrange everything in their lives so their lives are totally destroyed.”
Heyer also has a website called sexchangeregret.com and he says that hundreds of thousands of people have visited it. “Today, we have a worldwide ministry that reaches over 300 million people a year and people now are de-transitioning by the hundreds,” said Heyer
In the site, Heyer also recounts what he went through, having had gender reassignment surgery in 1983 but being left unsatisfied and then de-transitioning back to male 25 years ago. He is now happily married for 20 years to a woman, but he recognizes the permanent damage that surgery caused to his body, having to take hormones now to “try to regulate a system that is permanently altered,” according to Heyer.
The site also notes the fact that males have XY chromosomes, even those who are transgender women, and that the genes responsible for the determination of sex, SRY, and the genes that determine possible male infertility, AZF a, b, and c, are not found to be abnormal in transsexual people, meaning there is no biological reason for people to be transgender.
If you want to read more of Heyer’s testimony, go to this Breitbart News link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/former-transgender-woman-on-sex-change-regret-people-are-de-transitioning-in-the-hundreds/.
Moving on to lesbian feminists, however, we also find another great speech.
The speech was given by Natasha Chart, a feminist writer at FeministCurrent.org, and while her speech was relatively long and I can’t share everything she said, here are the main points:
If you wish to read her full speech, here is the link: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/08/watch-feminist-speaks-against-transgender-ideology-i-will-not-submit/.
But what she says is completely right and insanely powerful. I’ve already noted how feminists get banned from Twitter if they speak out against men in women’s sports and other transgender issues. And the risk of transgender bathroom laws, as I have always maintained, is that women are put into the precarious situation where they might be raped or sexually assaulted.
Chart herself noted in her speech: “If a woman complains that a man has dropped his trousers in front of her at a job, the left will shout ‘Me Too!’ in solidarity, and he’ll be cancelled. If a woman complains because he dropped his trousers in front of her at a gym locker, but he says he’s a woman, they’ll cancel her. Is that kind?”
Basically, transgender bathroom laws, despite their supposed intentions, leave women at risk of being raped or sexually assaulted and without the ability to hold the man accountable because of identity politics (and yes, Chart railed on the hypocrisy of the Left more than in just this instance).
The transgender agenda gives license to rapist and sexually-deviant men to get away with whatever they want and have the Left side with them. Only look at someone like “Jessica Yaniv”, the transgender “woman” who is all-too happy to sue a wax parlor because the female worker would not touch his male genitals.
Because of cases like Yaniv, is it really so surprising to see conservatives, lesbian feminists and former transgenders – who discovered the grim reality of what gender reassignment and transgenderism bring someone – fighting on the same side against a highly-dangerous and morally-evil agenda?
I’m not sure if I have stated this previously, as I have said a lot of things at this point in my career, but I have felt for a while that the transgender movement would have to be completely divorced from the rest of the gay movement. It totally goes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals, who by definition affirm the reality of two genders.
If Hegelian dialectics are anything to go by, this antithesis of transgenderism to the thesis of the rest of the gay movement will have to bring about a synthesis, where the two theses collide with one another. I think that’s what’s happening here, with lesbians and other gay people fighting against the transgender movement. This also is the case for feminism against transgenderism.
Put simply: transgenderism and feminism cannot peaceably coexist. One must abandon key beliefs in order to appease the other and live with it to some extent. If more men enter women’s sports because they are wimps and can’t win against other men, women’s sports will disappear because the women, most of the time, cannot compete against physically-superior men.
There is a reason there is an NBA and a WNBA – a reason there is a men’s and women’s tennis (though there are mixed teams too, but still).
One of the reasons Serena Williams was so successful is because she has a uniquely man-like physique that makes her bigger, stronger and generally physically superior to many women. And even then, when facing against a man ranked 203rd in 1998, the man destroyed her and then her sister, beating Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2. Despite her physical advantages against women, she is still, herself, a woman and physically inferior to most athletic men. The mere fact that she even said that no man outside the top 200 could beat the Williams sisters is an indication that she didn’t think she could beat Carlos Moya, who was the same rank as Serena (no. 5) in 1998, and an indication that she did not believe she could beat a man of her skill range. Despite the similarities in rank at the time, the Williams sisters didn’t think they could beat men in their same rank range, such as Carlos Moya, Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, or even number 199, Lorenzo Manta.
If men and women are not physically different, why wouldn’t Serena and Venus Williams have challenged men who were in a similar rank to them at the time?
But regardless, my point is that the transgender movement is very dangerous for society as a whole, not to mention people the Left already victimizes, like women and homosexuals.
It’s very dangerous to children, as hormone treatment can permanently destroy children’s lives, and it makes absolutely no sense to be in favor of this.
But the hate-filled Left will see none of this logic and change their minds. They think transgenderism is something they must back in order to attain power, even though Obama himself admitted on NPR that his support for transgenderism might’ve made Trump’s election easier.
This is far too dangerous and destructive to be allowed and I hope and pray that God will guide the SCOTUS to the right decision. Otherwise, may God help us.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”
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!
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!
Recently, CampusReform’s Cabot Phillips went to the University of Georgia, offering students $100 if they could answer this simple question: “Can you offer an example of a liberal speaker being shouted down by conservative students?”
Of course, this is coming from the fact that there have been multiple cases of college speakers getting shouted down and events being cancelled. And it really should come as no surprise to anyone that every speaker that was shouted down was either conservative (Ben Shapiro and others) or simply said things that the Leftist students disagreed with.
So for $100, Cabot challenged a number of students to see if any of them could think of even one example of conservative students shouting down a liberal event in any way. As you could imagine, not one student was $100 richer that day.
No student could recall such an event happening either because they were not necessarily paying attention (not that there even is an example even if you were paying attention) or simply because they legitimately could not picture even one time when conservative students shouted down a liberal speaker.
One of the students admitted: “No, I don’t think I can name any. I wish I could, but no…”
I won’t get too much into that particular answer, since seeing the video, I take that to mean “I wish I could tell you so I could get that $100” and not “I wish I could tell you so that I can own conservatives.”
His demeanor was not one of someone who was frustrated at not being able to come up with an example.
Another student said: “I honestly would believe that that hasn’t happened before.” Which is quite an interesting answer, all things considered.
Now, unsurprisingly, pretty much all of them still tried to say that the Left was more tolerant and open-minded. One of them said: “I just think people are a bit more open on the liberal side.” The interesting thing is that Cabot tried to reason with him, saying that, knowing conservatives don’t shut down liberal speakers, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider the conservatives to be more open-minded? The student briefly agreed with Cabot, but ultimately went with: “… I think it’s both sides.”
It really isn’t.
Another student, when faced by the same question of who is more tolerant, said: “I think so. I think if they (conservatives) did it, they’d know there’d be more backlash.”
A very fascinating point he makes. If it were conservatives shouting down liberal speakers, there would absolutely be more backlash. And deservedly so, because conservatives believe in freedom of speech. But then, this raises another question: “why don’t the liberals face the kind of backlash this student believes would go to conservatives if they did the exact same thing?”
Why is it that when liberal students threaten violence or actually perpetrate violence against a speaker they disagree with, they do not receive much if any backlash at all? Of course, we all know the answer to this. Academia and the media are both owned by the Left. The media won’t report on it, and when they do, they usually back the students who threatened violence.
Anyway, back to the students. Some of them still tried to make the case that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. Emphasis on the word “tried”. The ones that argued in favor of liberals being more open-minded either eventually came to an agreement or concession of their point, like the student I mentioned some paragraphs ago, or they simply had their tongues-tied and could not properly make an argument.
It’s because of those things that I titled this article like I did. The proof is in the pudding.
The overlords at Google define tolerance as: “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
Going by this definition owned by Leftists themselves, we can see that liberal students do not express tolerance towards conservative speakers. They have neither the ability nor the willingness to tolerate opinions that differ from their own.
Much like the Nazi brown shirts or the Fascist black shirts, liberal college students try to suppress and deny other people’s opinions. Beyond not wanting to hear those opinions, they do not want those opinions even uttered.
It is one thing to be a liberal, see that your college is hosting Ben Shapiro, and choosing not to go to the event. It is an entirely different thing to be a liberal, see that your college is hosting Ben Shapiro, and organize a mob to shut down the event altogether and keep Shapiro from speaking at all.
You have the right to not hear someone’s opinion, but you do not have the right to bully and threaten and keep someone from expressing their opinion. Like the student said, if conservatives were to do it to liberals, there would be a lot of backlash, even from the Right, as well there should be. No real conservative would shut down the speech of another person just because they disagree with them.
But those are not the rules the Left lives by. Knowing this, and the fact that they are the only ones who do this to anyone, then one cannot realistically argue that liberals are at least equally as tolerant or even more tolerant than conservatives. That is simply the opposite of reality.
Not one of these students got $100 because not one of these students could come up with an example of conservatives shutting down liberal events. That’s because that sort of thing does not happen. We may attend liberal events and challenge the ideas of the speakers, much like some liberals attend conservative events and challenge the speaker, but we never adamantly keep someone from expressing their beliefs, as erroneous and messed up as they might be.
This is all because conservatives are truly tolerant, while the Left is not. Now, one thing needs to be clarified: it is okay to be intolerant sometimes. Definitely not when your desire is to shut down someone else’s opinion and keep them from uttering it. But definitely when someone is doing something wrong.
What do I mean by this? Well, this all comes down to right and wrong. For example, we should not be tolerant of terrorism. While sissy countries like the U.K. and France seemingly tolerate terrorism (see London Mayor Sadiq Khan saying it’s part and parcel of living in a big city), no one should really tolerate such a despicable act. No country should lay down and accept that as part of life. No one should tolerate radical Islamic extremists killing people in the name of Allah or Sharia Law or sex with goats or whatever.
At that point, tolerating terrorism is not tolerance, it’s surrender. And doing this is extremely dangerous in multiple levels.
So it’s okay to not be tolerant of everything. If we had to tolerate everything, then we would have had to tolerate Nazism. It’s good to tolerate things, so long as those things are not adamantly evil and a horrible thing in this world.
Regardless, I hope this experience leaves some of those kids with something to think about. If they are logical, they should come to the conclusion that liberals are really the ones who don’t tolerate things and that conservatives are the ones who tolerate others.
2 Peter 3:18
“But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles delivered straight into your inbox. And as the name suggests, it comes completely free of charge. So make sure to check it out today!
Here at Angels of Truth, we tend to focus on issues that are of great importance in one manner or the other. We talked about the State of the Union speech that showcased Trump at his finest, we’ve talked about Chinese millennials being uninspired by communism and have destroyed the idiotic things the Left says time and time again, often because they keep saying idiotic things.
But it’s important to have a laugh once in a while and conservative actor James Woods provides that in a series of tweets (that don’t necessarily all relate to one another) since Trump’s State of the Union address.
We’ll begin with the tweets relating with the State of the Union address and/or the Democrat rebuttal speeches.
As you may know, Democrat Representative from Massachusetts Joe Kennedy III was the first to give a rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union. Aside from the fact that it shows how little star-power the Democrats have if a member of one of the most privileged families in American history is the first to give a rebuttal, Kennedy also appeared to have been drooling during his speech.
James Woods sent out these two tweets about it: “#JoeBlow,” and “Joe was drooling and you (Pelosi) were chomping on your dentures. Trump rolled over both of you like political roadkill.”
When talking about the poll released by CBS News showing that 75% of viewers approved of Trump’s speech, Woods tweeted: “And the other 25% are wiping wallpaper waste off the corners of their mouths… #JoeBlow #PolidentPelosi”.
When the Left began their efforts to downplay the importance of combatting the Salvadorian gang MS-13, specifically MSNBC’s Joy Reid doing the downplaying, Woods simply had this to say: “#Nitwit”.
And regarding the general downplaying of the murderous group, Woods tweeted: “Unfortunately, the #Democrats only ‘respect’ two things: illegal votes and other people’s money.”
Then, when a video was released showing immigration activists throwing shoes at the screen showing Trump’s SOTU speech, Woods accurately described them as: “#Democrats acting like the enraged toddlers they are…”
Switching gears from the SOTU speech, Woods replied to a Hillary Clinton tweet that said: “If Republicans put so much faith in the Hand of God, why do they need guns?” This was Woods’ reply: “Same reason the #ClintonFoundation needs outside accountants.”
Going back to the SOTU speech, Woods shared a graphic detailing the things the Democrats sat and groaned about rather than applauding. The graphic said: “Democrats refused to stand up for border security, the American flag, fighting opioid abuse, the national anthem, bonuses for Americans, low black unemployment, merit-based immigration, Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol, 2.4 million jobs created and In God We Trust,” with Woods commenting: “Why do they hate this country so?”
He also ripped to shreds a tweet by Dan Rather which said: “In my line of work I’ve come across many people with something to hide. And I have found, generally, that those who lash out the most are usually those who are most afraid about having the truth revealed.” Woods replied with: “You tried to influence a presidential election with a doctored fake document. #StopTalking”.
He also called out someone from ACLU who said: “But what Trump wants to do is hold the lives of 800,000 Americans in the balance…” Woods noticed the b.s. coming from the guy by saying: “This clown from the ACLU literally calls 800,000 illegal aliens ‘Americans’. They are not.”
And finally, we end with more general laughter at the Left’s expense. A conservative I often see on my Twitter feed by the handle of “Educating Liberals” tweeted the following: “Hillary Clinton literally saved my life… A few years ago I was in a terrible car accident and went into a coma for 6 months. Doctors said I’d never walk again. Then one day she came on the news, I woke up, walked over to the TV and turned it off. It was truly a miracle.”
To which Woods responded with: “I’m rarely moved to tears, but this story is truly a religious experience…”
And the last tweet to share with you is a different sort of graphic. The graphic portrays the faces of Nancy Pelosi readjusting her dentures at the SOTU, Maxine Waters looking like an idiot, Michelle Obama looking like a gorilla, and Hillary Clinton looking insane with the caption above reading: “Question: If you were the last man on earth and these were the last four women on earth and you needed to reproduce. Who would you pick?”
Woods answered with: “It would be the end of the human race…”
I knew there was a good reason I started following him on Twitter. Not only is he solidly conservative, but he’s also pretty funny.
All of these responses are appropriate for the situation, such as calling out the ACLU guy for calling the Dreamers “American”. Of course, I see it more as a Leftist talking point than a mere mistake.
No doubt, the Left considers these illegals to be just as American or even more so than anyone here who is here legally.
Regarding Hillary’s tweet about guns and having faith in God, I would personally like to comment by saying if guns are so dangerous, how come she has armed security with her 24/7? If guns are the problem, wouldn’t she feel safer if her body guards weren’t carrying them?
Not to mention that that’s a rather insulting comment to Christians. She’s very openly making fun of Christians’ beliefs with that tweet. Well, Crooked Hillary, I’ll have you know that even Jesus Himself tells us we ought to protect ourselves.
Luke 22:36 says: “He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”
Jesus uttered the importance of protecting oneself from those who might wish to cause us harm. It’s important enough that, if it’s necessary, we should sell the clothes on our very back in order to procure protection.
And your ability to have and wield a weapon is part of God’s protection, as without Him, you may not have the ability to get one or the ability to use one. We pray we never have to use a gun but we’ll always be prepared if we have to. Never before have the words “better safe than sorry” mattered so much.
And commenting on Dan Rather’s tweet, I would just like to point him to how the Democrats, media, FBI and DOJ are responding to the decision to release the memo. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t be reacting in the manner that they are.
Getting away from these tangents, it’s refreshing to see conservative icons such as James Woods utterly destroying the Left not merely with facts but also with humor. And it’s nice to sit back and watch these things happening. It somewhat helps to distract us from the tough fight against the Left without completely being oblivious to it.
“He will yet fill your mouth with laughter, and your lips with shouting.”
I’ll begin this article by saying that I could understand NeverTrumpers a year or so ago. I could understand their worries. I could understand their skepticism. I could understand why they were against Trump back then.
Trump was largely unproven. He never held elected office (which is one of the many reasons we like him), he had never really enacted conservative policy. He was an insanely successful entrepreneur. But he was a New Yorker too. What I mean is that he spent a lot of time with liberal friends and making friends with elected liberals in New York. This is one of the reasons NeverTrumpers didn’t like him.
Plenty of politicians before Trump came along and said the right things at the right time. Back in 2012, Romney would sound super conservative when he needed to, but then turn around and be the cowardly establishment rat that he is. Trump kicked off his campaign with a very strong and conservative message. And while he wasn’t taken very seriously back then, he still faced opposition from NeverTrumpers such as Glenn Beck.
He spoke nice but he had yet to prove he was a true conservative. And even Trump himself said that he considers himself to be more of a “common sense conservative”, as opposed to some of his opponents who were more “constitutional conservative”; meaning, his opponents were more focused on the legality of situations. That’s not to say that being a constitutional conservative is a bad thing. On contraire, I would hope to see more of them in Congress. But Trump wasn’t a lawyer. He wasn’t focused more on the constitutional side of things.
Obviously, he cares deeply about our Constitution, but he’s never made it the focus of things. So I understand why NeverTrumpers were skeptical about him. They theorized that the only reason he ran is so that he could hand over the election to Hillary (I’m actually paraphrasing something I heard Glenn Beck say one day when I actually listened to him). They expected him to either go soft against Hillary just as Romney did against Obama, or if he won, that he would betray his supporters and side with the Democrats that he once befriended and donated to.
But over this past year, he’s left little doubt that he intends to keep his promises. That he intends to Make America Great Again. And I’m not the only one who’s noticed.
The Heritage Foundation, a well-respected conservative think tank, ranked Donald Trump’s first year in office ahead of Ronald Reagan’s first year in terms of enacting conservative policies.
How do they rank the two presidents? Well, according to Breitbart: “In 2016, Heritage came up with 334 conservative policies, a wish-list of sorts, for a new Republican administration. Trump has enacted 64 percent of those items. In 1981, his first year in office, Reagan scratched off only 49 percent of the items on that year’s Heritage list.”
Now, there are some notable differences that have to be acknowledged. In 2016, Republicans retained control of Congress. Back in 1980, Republicans managed to take back the Senate, but the Democrats still held a pretty decent majority in the House. No doubt, things were expected to be very difficult to be passed.
Now, I also acknowledge that Republicans in Congress have been jerks, to put it lightly, and have not passed much MAGA agenda policy. So while Republicans control Congress, there are those who are hidden Democrats that refuse to help Make America Great Again. There’s not that many, but enough to obstruct the agenda. And since Republicans now only hold a 1 vote lead, it’s even easier for Congressional NeverTrumpers to obstruct things.
Another difference worth mentioning is that Reagan and Trump have worked in entirely different eras. Reagan didn’t have social media and conservative media to help expose the b.s. coming from the Left. Had Trump also not had social media and conservative media to help him out, I don’t think he would’ve become the Republican candidate. He still might’ve, but it’s doubtful. And the likelihood of him winning the general election would’ve been slim.
If all people had to go on to learn about Trump was what the MSM said about him during the campaign, I’m not certain he would’ve even come close to winning. Reagan managed to utterly crush his opponents despite the lack of social media and conservative media.
That being said, I also have to mention that Reagan had a very different character than Trump does. Reagan was more “constitutional conservative”. He was what conservatives today aspire to be. For as much as I love Trump, he isn’t as articulate as Reagan was.
And one final difference would likely be how they were both treated by the media. Yes, both Reagan and Trump were treated as a joke. But even though I wasn’t alive to see Reagan campaign, I doubt the media was as bloodthirsty back then as they are today.
I imagine they had some semblance of manners and respect. At the very least some decency. I can’t say that the media has any of these qualities anymore.
Again, I don’t know exactly how the media treated Reagan back then, but I can’t imagine they were as beastly as they are towards Trump. Biased, sure. But not beastly.
Now, let’s return to the issue of the NeverTrumpers. While I could understand their skepticism a year ago, I can’t say I can understand any of their arguments anymore. They said he wasn’t a real conservative, yet a well-respected conservative think tank acknowledges that Trump has been more conservative than even REAGAN in enacting conservative policy. As an example, take deregulation.
Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, informed us that “President Trump has cancelled and killed more than 1,500 regulations in the last 11 months. The most of any President in history in first year of a Presidency.”
Deregulation goes a long way to helping the country, and a long way to establish yourself as a true conservative. While Democrats and liberals enact and call for more regulations to absolutely everything they possibly can, conservatives tend to deregulate things that don’t need to be regulated.
A large reason the economy is doing as well as it is is because of these deregulations on businesses. It’s amazing what the economy can do when you take off the shackles placed by Democrats (who have a rich history of shackling things).
Aside from a booming economy, Trump has been doing wonders to fight for the rights of unborn children and destroying our radical Islamic enemies.
Trump has proven to be extremely conservative in deed. He may not be an ideological conservative, but he has very conservative instincts. He may not have seen Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats as his enemy, but I believe he will start seeing them that way. He expected the country to rally behind him once he was elected but that didn’t happen. That wasn’t ever going to happen. But he’s learned that these people will hate him no matter what he does… or doesn’t do, as in the case of merely CONSIDERING firing Mueller (which he has every right to do) but deciding against it.
I believe he’s beginning to understand and see things more conservatively. Thus, his actions and growth as a President should leave no one on the Right to still be against him.
He’s proven to be conservative in the actions he’s partaken. Anyone on the Right who is still against him is merely being stubborn at this point. Thankfully, there are some NeverTrumpers who have realized their mistakes, such as Mollie Hemingway from The Federalist and radio talk show host Dennis Prager.
Both have realized that he’s more conservative than they believed he was. No doubt, it’s his policies and actions as POTUS that led them to realize their mistake in opposing him.
Unfortunately, there are still some who choose to remain stubborn, choose to side with the Left, if anything, and continue opposing him. People like Jonah Goldberg of the National Review and Bill Kristol. Perhaps even Glenn Beck, though I’ve ceased to listen to him and follow him on Twitter. A shame, really, since he was pretty funny at times.
Regardless, it’s this stubbornness that will ultimately alienate them from the rest of the country, both conservatives and liberals. Much like with yet another NeverTrumper, Megyn Kelly, these NeverTrumpers will never be liked by the Left as long as they don’t disavow their supposedly “conservative” values. And with their stubborn opposition to Trump, conservatives won’t like them either.
Why would they? Again, I could understand their skepticism a year ago. But not anymore. They have no actual reason to still dislike him or what he’s doing. Their continuing hatred towards him proves them to be just as stubborn as anyone on the Left. Despite clear evidence, they stick to their beliefs.
It takes more faith to be an atheist and believe in climate change than it does to believe in God. Likewise, it takes more faith to believe Trump isn’t conservative than to believe he is.
And that’s where the biggest comparison is made between the NeverTrumpers and the Left at this point in time. Both groups are insanely stubborn and refuse to believe in the evidence presented to them.
“He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.”
On Thursday, September 14th, the social media world exploded when reports came in (through the MSM) that Trump, Schumer and Pelosi reached a deal that would protect “Dreamers” and exclude the building of a wall.
Schumer and Pelosi, after their dinner with the president, released the following statement: “[We] agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”
If you read this alone, you’d think Trump caved on the Wall. But you have to remember exactly who is giving this statement. The Left will always lie when it benefits them. They’ve been trying to separate Trump from his supporters, and saying that Trump caved on the Wall is an attempt at doing just that.
And it worked for a bit. I saw plenty of conservatives be enraged at Trump on social media, when only one side (the b.s. liberal side) was given. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted out: “No deal was made last night on DACA”. Trump also said, later in the day, that the three came “fairly close” to reaching a deal that would require “massive border security”.
Then, while traveling to Florida to assess the damage of Hurricane Irma and helping the victims, the President said: “Ultimately, we have to have the wall. If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing.” He said that having the wall was “vital” and even called out Republicans who would “become the obstructionists” if the wall weren’t to be funded.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if the last couple of years is anything to go by, I’d trust what Trump says over what the MSM or Schumer and Pelosi said happened. If we don’t trust them when they say that Russia hacked the election or that Climate Change is happening and it’s our fault, why would we trust them when they say they’ve made a deal with the president? Particularly when he says that no deal was made in the end?
I’ve seen plenty of people on social media explode, saying they want the Wall and that we NEED the Wall. And I agree, but you have to realize that Trump never took the Wall off the table. He said no deal was made, so why trust the Left over him on this particular issue?
And Trump isn’t the only one to push back on what the Democrat leaders said. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted: “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to.”
Like Trump, I’d trust HER more than any other news source on things the President does.
Now, Trump HAS softened his views on the Dreamer issue. Tweeting: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” Another tweet read: “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age.”
This garnered one particular “Trump supporter” to attack the president. Ann Coulter tweeted: “’Put a fork in Trump, he’s dead’” and “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?” Really? He softens his position on this one issue and you’re ready to put him in the guillotine? Ready to impeach him? Now, I won’t react too much towards Coulter’s tweets, since this isn’t the first time she’s thrown a tantrum over Trump doing something she didn’t like. She’s not a supporter, she’s simply trying to get attention and clicks to her page. That’s it.
The problem with that is that you come across as not being able to choose a side. You’re either FOR the President, therefore with conservatives, or AGAINST him and therefore with the Left. Megyn Kelly was against Trump and alienated her conservative audience. The Left never liked her. Conservatives no longer like her, so now her only audience is Never Trump traitors over at NBC, where her ratings are about what you’d expect when not a lot of people like you.
So it makes no sense to want to throw out Trump over THIS. He’s not saying he’s giving the Dreamers citizenship so they can vote for Democrats. He’s not giving up the Wall. In fact, he’s literally said he’s STILL going for the Wall. And he’s not going to sell out the country.
He will, however, try to get things to happen. Republicans are among the worst kind of scum on the Earth and won’t help Trump with anything. Democrats are willing to work with Trump if they get a little something in return. They’ve already done this with the debt ceiling, which wound up not meaning too much while also helping those affected by Hurricane Harvey with the “Hurricane Harvey Relief” part of the deal.
With the DACA issue, he’s willing to soften his position, but these people are somewhat different from other illegals. These DACA people were brought into the country through illegal means. But that’s at least a little bit more understandable than someone crossing the border on his own. It’s easy to know what we want with illegals that cross the border and exploit the country’s system. It’s a little bit more difficult knowing what you want when this involves people who were BROUGHT into our country and don’t know anything else outside of it. And it’s not exactly fair or even humane to flat out kick them out when they are not the ones at fault.
Now, there are different kinds of DACA children. Some of them were shipped by their parents from a foreign country. And some simply came here with their parents.
So, you have to take different measures with the different circumstances. Here’s what I propose:
First, the children shipped by their parents. I can understand parents wanting what’s best for their children, but a 6 or 7 year old is simply not going to do much better in this country without his/her parents. Could you imagine being that young, being in a foreign land where you don’t know the language, don’t know where to go and don’t know what to do, forced to live with a relative you barely know? It’s a horrible nightmare. So those children should be shipped back to their parents, because it’s better to be with people who love you somewhere not as good as the U.S. than being on your own, scared out of your mind in the best country in the world. At least at that age.
Children aren’t like adults. Adults will be better able to get by in a foreign country than a child would. So, they go back to their parents.
Finally, those who came here with their parents illegally. Well, this one’s the easiest. Send them all back. Each of them is breaking the law, and the child’s parents are teaching him/her that it’s OK to break the law on occasion. No child should be taught to break the law unless it’s a law that goes against God or the Bible. But border laws don’t go against God or the Bible. It’s not good for children to be taught that they can break the law if they will benefit from doing so.
But to return to the whole “Trump caved” issue, let’s not overreact. And let’s certainly not pay attention to what the Left says when Trump himself hasn’t given his side of the argument. We’ve never trusted the Left on anything else, why would we do it this time?
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on 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...