You know it’s election season when trust in the fake news media is down and the lowest it has ever been. While a strong case can be made that no one, not even liberals, ought to have trusted the fake news media ever since Trump won the 2016 presidential election, trust in the fake news media had gone up a bit following the election (though with many points where it fell drastically) and now, we are once again at an all-time low in trust for the MSM.
A new Gallup poll finds trust in the fake news media to be extremely low. Only 9% report trusting the media “a great deal” and 31% trust it “a fair amount.” Meanwhile 27% of people have “not very much” trust in the mainstream media and a full 33% have “none at all,” making the split between “trust” and “not trust” at 40%-60% respectively, a 20-point differential.
The poll also notes that the percentage of people who have no trust at all is a record high and up five points since last year.
According to the poll: “33% who do not have any confidence this year reflects a five-point uptick and is the highest reading on record. Republicans are the main drivers behind this change: 58% of them now express this view, marking a 10-point increase and the first-ever majority-leading reading.”
The poll shows that just 10% of Republicans trust the news media with just 3% have a “great deal” of trust in them. And we can clearly see who the Never Trump RINOs are in this poll, particularly with that second number. Only someone who hates Trump to the core would consider the fake news media responsible for the fabrication of numerous different hoaxes to be in any way trustworthy.
I’m less worried about that 10% because, despite the fact that it’s the lowest level on record from Gallup, as far as I could see, I can imagine some of them had sources like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh in mind when answering this question, and such sources are largely trustworthy.
The question was framed as follows: “In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media – such as newspapers, TV and radio – when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?”
While there are liberal radio hosts and stations, such as NPR, most Republicans will think of “radio” and will immediately picture Rush Limbaugh’s show, which to many, is a great source for news and political commentary that is trustworthy. So there is definitely the possibility that at least some of the people who said they were Republicans in the poll answered with conservative publications in mind.
At any rate, perhaps entirely unsurprisingly as well, the poll also finds that 73% of Democrats trust the fake news media, which is up 21 points since 2016. I imagine being fed the things they wanted to hear at extreme rates made them have a lot of trust in the anti-Trump media, which can explain these numbers. These Democrats largely hate Trump and love to watch and hear and read of any news story which is exclusively bad for Donald Trump (which is literally more than 90% of the time).
Gallup also noted that many hold the belief that the media is an important element to a strong democracy (we are a Republic, for one. Two, I agree but only when it is honest media), but that their opinions of the current news media do not purport to a great deal of support for it, which is rather obvious given the numbers.
When the news industry is actually fair and balanced, with reporters who will share all the details that they can without blatantly and obviously intentionally omitting important aspects that help shape the context of the news in order to attack people they don’t like, that is going to help any country with almost any system of government. Most definitely, a constitutional Republic would benefit tremendously from honest media.
But that’s not the kind of media that we have today. We have the kind of media banana republics and second- and third-world dictatorships have. We have the kind of media which will blatantly favor one side and which will lie for the government if the government is run by the people they like.
The fake news media helped sell the Iran nuclear deal to the American people. They asked no real questions of Obama, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, or anyone. They fully bought into the idea that we were giving Iran $150 BILLION for them to “build bridges and roads.” No one in the fake news media questioned it, acting as though we are Russia or China or North Korea.
The fake news media is basically state-sanctioned media whenever there is a Democrat in the White House. Such political partiality does damage to democracy and leads people astray (not that they do it by accident – it’s entirely purposeful).
In any case, Gallup’s “Bottom Line” analysis in the end says: “Americans’ confidence in the media to report the news fairly, accurately and fully has been persistently low for over a decade and shows no signs of improving, as Republicans’ and Democrats’ trust moves in opposite directions. The political polarization that grips the country is reflected in partisans’ views of the media, which are now the most divergent in Gallup’s history.”
This is also not at all surprising. When the fake news media drives, for four years, the hoax that the sitting President of the United States colluded with a foreign power to steal the 2016 election, that is bound to divide people greatly. At no point did the media have a shred of evidence to support their claims and yet talk about it as though it’s settled science – as though it’s an undeniable fact that Trump colluded with Russia. It’s nothing but b.s., so of course people who support the president aren’t exactly cool with these people.
Now, the poll itself was conducted from August 31st to September 13th, and a lot of news stories, including one debate, have occurred since then which ought to have driven confidence down a bit (not that there was a lack of fake news stories in that time period or before), but as we get closer and closer to the actual election, I hope that trust in the media further plummets.
They keep trying to tell the lie that Biden is far ahead in multiple states and that he has an even greater chance than Hillary did to win this election, which is a total load of crap. What reason do I have to believe polls conducted by the fake news media, particularly when they routinely oversample Democrats and under-sample Republicans?
They are not to be trusted by anyone, even liberals. The fake news media assured them in 2016 that that election was Hillary’s to lose and that she was all but assured to win it and look where that got them. Why would anyone, even liberals, be willing to trust what these people say, at least when it comes to who is the likely winner of the election, when they got it so wrong last time?
“And Jesus answers them, ‘See that no one leads you astray…’”
In a statement published by the journal of BioScience, 11,000 “scientists” sounded the alarm about the emergency that is climate change and called on governments and people to take action.
The statement read: “We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency… An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis… The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle… To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live…”
Boy, does that sound like a huge warning and boy does that sound like a massive pile of crap. Funny enough, whoever thinks this is, indeed, a massive pile of crap is absolutely right.
Feel free to explore literally any of the other articles I have written over the last few years regarding climate change to see how utterly ludicrous this is. But for this article, I will allow for others to (sort of) make the arguments for me.
You see, apart from the fact that this statement is ridiculous on its face, clearly only serves the Left’s desires of obtaining and retaining power, and offers little in terms of accurate scientific evidence, there are a number of problems with just about everything surrounding this statement.
First of all, 15,000 “scientists” signed a similar statement back in 2017, giving the same warning about climate change. What happened to the other 4,000 “scientists” this time around? Were they unavailable for comment? Were they on sabbatical? Did they change their minds? I don’t know, but the fact that there are thousands less “scientists” to sign this nonsense is quite telling.
Second of all, a decade ago, over 30,000 American scientists signed the Global Warming Petition Project, which was a warning that there was NO convincing scientific evidence to suggest or prove man-made climate change was real. The Project also insisted that global pacts like the Paris Climate Accord (such as the Kyoto Protocol) were counterintuitive to science and people’s very lives.
Funny how a petition signed by more than 30,000 American scientists didn’t get any airtime from the cable news networks but 11,000 signatories from across the world received MSM attention.
Third of all, out of the 11,000 signatories of the most recent climate warning, only 156, or 1% of them, had a job title that included the field of climate research. The rest includes a list of the following:
I am not even joking. That’s how bad and outright funny this list is (which is now inaccessible since it was discovered that the talking mouse had signed it). Not only are an extremely low amount of people who have any sort of experience in the field of climatology the signatories, but some of the signatories are outright FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!
I honestly don’t know what’s funnier: that these people are desperate enough to credit a scientist’s MOM or fictional characters.
Have a look at the following pictures to find the sort of colorful cast this list includes:
This list is beyond parody and the titles that this list includes is a major reason I say that these are “scientists”. Yes, there are many here who actually are scientists, but not people who are qualified to sound the alarm over climate change in this manner. That 11,000 number may sound like a lot, which is its major intention, but 99% of it is filled with people who are either not climatologists, not doctors, not scientists or not even real.
Even one of the Zoologists on the list says that they are from the University of Neasden, UK. There is no University of Neasden, UK. The University of Neasden, UK is said to be a fictional university created by a British satirical magazine.
To put it into perspective, it’d be like giving credence to someone who was featured in a “The Onion” article.
The entire statement has a lot of problems, from bad graphs (no graph used shows historical data past 1980, so the lines are very sharp and diagonal when throughout the history of the world, what we have now might be considered fairly normal) to less signatories in just two years to the fact that there was a similar warning only two years ago to the fact that far more than double the amount of just American scientists argue AGAINST the idea of man-made climate change to the hilariously unqualified signatories ranging from scientists that have nothing to do with the climate to other professions to family members of a scientist to fictional people from fictional places.
Anyone who would even for a minute take this statement seriously is severely lacking in any sort of information about the topic at hand. Worse still, they would have to be severely lacking in this sort of information about who the signatories actually are or would have to be extremely dishonest to push this as any sort of significant evidence that there is a climate crisis and we must act with haste and in extreme ways.
Again, I invite you to read over any of the other articles I have written over the years surrounding the topic of climate change. Regardless of what you may think of them, or even me, I can guarantee I’m more qualified to talk about climate change than MICKEY MOUSE.
“A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
One of the Left’s most powerful and oft-used weapons is deception. They will take something that is fairly true, misconstrue it and use it to tell a bold-faced lie. Anything from “Trump had Russians in Trump Tower” to “Trump assails against hate but not guns” are things that are basically true but heavily misconstrued to drive a narrative. The Russians that were in the Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr. were not from the Russian government and Trump’s assailing against hate but not guns is due to not blaming an inanimate object for mass shootings and instead attacks the ideologies the shooters had and their reason for killing people.
But the point remains that the Left often uses deception and lies to drive their fictitious narratives and advance their agendas. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is no different and used this tactic when unveiling her gun control plan should she be elected President of the United States.
The funny thing is that, even before talking about gun control, Elizabeth Warren lied about something else: automobile deaths going down supposedly after government issued regulations to car manufacturers.
The senator wrote: “Over fifty years, we reduced per-mile driving deaths by almost 80% and prevented 3.5 million automobile deaths. And we’re still at it.”
However, Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), explains the logical deceitfulness of Warren’s claim:
“It is pretty deceptive to claim that government regulations reduced motor vehicle deaths by 80%. Those deaths were falling much faster before the federal [government] started regulating auto safety.”
“As indicated by the figures from my book, ‘The War on Guns’: 1) it is easy to see that cars were getting safer from the time the very first data was released in 1921, long before there were mandated federal safety regulations, and 2) when you look over the entire period, the rate at which car safety improved actually slowed down after the federal government started regulating car safety. The first seatbelts were introduced in 1950 by car companies that were figuring out on their own how to make cars safer. But the New York Times’ graph doesn’t show the even faster drop in vehicle deaths per-mile-traveled that occurred before 1946.”
“It is important to note that accidental deaths from all sources are falling over time. Companies are competing against each other to provide customers with safer products, and items such as seat belts, shatter proof glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages were just some of the many safety features adopted by car makers long before the federal government got involved in regulating auto safety.”
Dr. Lott also figures that “government regulations slowed down safety regulations for a simple reason: the government micromanaged how companies would meet those safety improvements. It isn’t just that the government mandated that car companies had to use airbags in their cars, it is that the government would tell the companies exactly how to make those bags and how to install them. That forced car companies to wait on installing these safety features until the federal government told the companies exactly how they wanted the product made and installed. If the companies didn’t wait, they may find themselves spending hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, only to find that they had to redesign everything and start all over.”
In sum, Dr. Lott points out that Sen. Warren’s claim is purposefully misleading. Yes, automobile deaths were going down over time, but definitely not because of the government. If anything, those numbers would’ve gone down QUICKER without government involvement and regulation. The free market would’ve demanded car manufacturers to make their cars safer, installing more and more safety features. From seatbelts to airbags and even the fairly recent back-up cameras that are being installed more and more, the free market makes it so that companies compete with one another to make their products good and safe for the public. The government only gets in the way of progress.
Of course, the reason this is even being talked about is that Warren is trying to insist that government regulation “helped” lower vehicle deaths (it was actually a detriment to that) and as such, government regulation can “help” lower gun deaths (it would also be a massive detriment to that too). The problem that Warren faces is that reality speaks of a different story. The government DIDN’T help cars get safer and it certainly wouldn’t help lower gun deaths.
Now, that isn’t the only dumb claim Warren makes in her plan. Far from it, as much of it basically regurgitates the ridiculous gun control ideas other Democrats have put forth with some changes to make them her own. One of Warren’s ideas was to make private gun sales require background checks. Of this, Dr. Lott said:
“A lot of academic research by criminologists and economists on background checks on the private transfer of guns has found no effect on crime rates. There is a simple reason for this. A major source of illegal guns are drug dealers, who have weapons to protect their valuable property. You will have about as much success stopping drug dealers from selling guns as you have in stopping them from selling drugs, and if you think that you have stopped criminals from being able to buy illegal drugs, good luck thinking that you will stop them from being able to obtain guns.”
What Dr. Lott is essentially saying is that private gun sales, and particularly background checks, have no noticeable impact on crime rates largely because illegally-acquired guns are far more prevalently used. Whether it be through stealing it from someone or purchasing it from a black market, there is no legislation that has ever been thought up or could ever be thought up that would actually be able to completely stop the use of illegal weapons. Certainly, coming up with regulations that ban or make illegal guns that are currently legal don’t help either. Restricting the law-abiding citizens in their abilities to protect themselves and/or their families doesn’t keep gangsters or mass shooters from killing other people.
According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, at minimum, there are 760,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. Meaning that there are at least 760,000 times and scenarios in which someone uses a gun in self-defense every single year (and the actual number is likely higher due to underreporting that tends to occur. People don’t tend to want to admit they used a gun to harm or kill someone else, even if it was in self-defense and they wouldn’t be held criminally liable). This dwarfs even the most ridiculous claims by Leftists about how many mass shootings there are in a year (they often claim in the hundreds, but they include shootings in which two or less people were killed and/or wounded, or even when there were no killed or wounded, but a firearm happened to have been discharged). So defensive use of guns far outweighs offensive use of guns such as in premeditated killings and mass shootings.
To restrict We the People’s ability to defend ourselves would only exacerbate the problem of mass shootings and killings. It’s no surprise, really, that Chicago often has very bloody weekends with all of its gun control regulations that are in place.
The last thing I will talk about regarding Warren’s gun control plan (there is a lot more, but I don’t want this article to be too long) is that she intends to allow for gun manufacturers and companies to be “strictly liable” for damages caused with a firearm. Of course, this leaves manufacturers in great financial peril given that it would allow for citizens to sue them to bankruptcy and that they would have to pay every single time a firearm causes someone some sort of damage.
Alongside that, she intends to increase taxes on firearms and ammunition purchases (30% and 50% respectively). It goes without saying that Warren’s plan would help bankrupt gun manufacturers and keep poor people from being able to protect themselves. The government can’t outright take our guns (there are far too many for that to be plausible and they would, at most, only be able to confiscate legally-purchased weapons, not illegal ones) but they certainly can make it a nightmare for people to make a living. Taxes and regulation are the enemy of businesses and they always restrict how much capital they are able to make.
There are certain times when I think regulation is a good idea, such as in the case of social media companies when they try to ban people for expressing differing opinions. If the end is to protect Constitutional rights, I think regulation can be a force for good (but, as with many things, can also be a force for evil when taken to the extreme). But in general, regulation is a detriment. You saw it in car manufacturing, with vehicle death numbers going down significantly until the government came in and told car manufacturers how to make their cars safer, and you see it whenever more gun control legislation is passed.
Joe Biden is somehow proud of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, despite it not having stopped any mass shootings (Columbine happened when this ban was in effect). Similarly, any gun control measure would be equally as ineffective to combating gun violence in America. If you want to know what it would take for this country to be alleviated from this problem, read my previous article about our country turning its back to God. I believe that can provide some answers.
“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.’”
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!
A little over a week ago, I wrote an article talking about how there was no link between extreme weather phenomenon and man-made climate change. Well, today, let’s talk about another ridiculous claim that the Left often makes: climate change leads to rising sea levels and will mean coastal cities will be flooded in a certain amount of time unless we employ more and more socialistic policies to “turn this around”.
When you put it that way, it’s hard to deny how much it looks like a scam… because that’s precisely what it is. And yet, many people buy into the idea that we are killing our planet through our cars and our air conditioners and our capitalism (somehow, despite China being one of the most egregious polluters in the world) and that in a certain amount of decades, places like Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, etc. will be uninhabitable for humans and land animals because they will be flooded.
This sort of cycle continues, as we still hear about this idiocy despite the fact that people have made predictions for today that are exactly like that and have failed to come true, such as Dr. James Hansen predicting back in the late 1980s that New York City’s West Side Highway would be under water within 20 years. Not quite sure why he chose to be so specific, but whatever the reason may be, he was obviously very wrong as it has been about 30 years since the late 1980s and no such thing has happened.
However, a recent study has shown that “trends in recent rates of shoreline change along the U.S. Atlantic Coast reflect an especially puzzling increase in accretion, not erosion,” according to Armstrong and Lazarus (2019) in a newly-published paper.
Notice the sort of language these guys are using. They are totally baffled at the idea that shorelines are actually expanding, because they are under the belief that sea levels are rising, which would naturally lead people to believe that shorelines would have to be decreasing. The authors try to attribute this “enigmatic pattern” to “beach nourishment” or infrastructure development to explain how this is happening even though sea levels are supposed to be rising.
As Climate Depot notes, “From 1830 to 1956, shorelines eroded at the rapid rate of -55 cm per year on average. Since 1960, the U.S. Atlantic coast has been expanding (accretion) at a rate of +5 cm per year.”
The real reason for this happening is not “beach nourishment” but rather because any scientist who is not paid off to spew Leftist garbage knows that geophysical processes are the reason for such sea-level variations throughout the entire world, not idiotic beliefs like glaciers melting causing there to be more water in the ocean.
Which really brings us to the main point this article is meant to tackle: the idea that melting ice caps (which are actually doing the opposite of melting) would cause sea levels to rise and coastal areas to get flooded. Anyone who has passed 6th grade science ought to know that ice is water in a different form and that melting of ice does not cause there to be more water out of nowhere.
For example, fill a glass with ice and then fill it with water just before it begins to overflow. Leave that glass of water with ice alone until the ice melts (or put it in the microwave if you’re impatient) and see the results. According to the Left, the glass will overflow because the ice will melt. However, what we notice is something entirely different: the glass is still just as full as it was before, there was no overflow, but now there’s just no ice. That is because ICE IS WATER TOO! It’s just in a different physical state, but it will still take up the exact same amount of space. Whatever space the ice cube was filling before is replaced with the water that the cube was composed of. There is no displacement of water, so there is no overflowing of the glass.
How then, if the ice caps were to melt, would the world get flooded when all the melting of the ice does is change the physical state of the ice from a solid to a liquid?
What’s more, has any of these Leftists ever heard of the water cycle? You know, the cycle where water evaporates, goes into the atmosphere, precipitates as rain or snow (depending on the temperature), goes down into sewers, rivers, etc., makes its way back to the ocean and begins the cycle anew? Well, if the ice caps were melting, that means some of the ice would be turned into a gas too, go into the atmosphere and go through the process we just described, so there technically would be a little bit less water than when it was in its ice form anyway.
But returning to my main point, it is ridiculous to suggest that the ice caps melting (which isn’t even happening, for God’s sake) would in turn lead to coastal cities to get flooded. That’s not how any of this works.
If you don’t believe me, just ask Christopher Piecuch, Peter Huybers and literally six other scientists saying: “the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries.”
Climate change does not lead to rising sea levels. Trends in sea levels, whichever way they may go, have more to do with geological processes than climate change.
And if the study by the seemingly baffled scientists is in any way accurate, then we can clearly see this to be the case. Now, if you were to ask me exactly how it’s happening, then I have no clue. I’m not a geologist by any means. But I do understand enough about the world to know that it’s completely asinine to say that melting ice caps and glaciers, etc. would lead to massive cities getting flooded. Science itself denies that this is at all possible, never mind that shorelines around the world have been in a trend of growth for a number of decades.
Between 1985 and 2015, satellite observations showed that coasts all over the world have gained roughly 13,000 km2 more land area than it had lost to the ocean, according to scientists back in 2016. So all over the world, coasts have only gained land, not lost to the ocean.
Now just watch as the Left will spin that as “we are warming the planet up so much, we are drying up the oceans”. I wouldn’t put it past them to start claiming such a thing.
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
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!
You know you have royally messed up if even the mainstream media won’t defend you and your claims. This is Elizabeth Warren now that she has willingly exposed herself as a fraud, believing that evidence contrary to her claims somehow proved her right.
Here are some headlines Monday morning when the DNA test had just been released, not a lot of people had finished reading it, and the media could have created the narrative in people’s minds that Trump was a racist and was proven wrong by the brilliant and brave Native American woman:
And my personal favorite:
Now, let’s contrast these to some of the headlines that came out after it was made obvious that the DNA test showed a range of 1/64th to 1/1024th Native American ancestry and the analyst didn’t even use Native American DNA in his analysis:
And there are plenty others like these. Keep in mind that it was the Daily Beast who most openly and utterly confirmed Warren’s Native American claims in their previous headline.
Again, you have to royally screw something up to get the media to turn on you if you are a prominent member of the Democrat Party and a figurehead of the “resistance” against Trump.
But all of this still makes sense. While it is still surprising to see the media turn on Warren in this way, which is something we never see with pretty much any other Democrat (except Bill Clinton, and you know you really messed up if you join him in the list of Democrats the media doesn’t want to talk about), it makes sense that Warren’s DNA results draw ire from people.
For decades, she had told the story that one of her ancestors was Cherokee and that her mother was Native American and had to elope with Warren’s father because her grandparents were bigots. All of it has since blown up in what can be considered a nuclear bomb on Warren.
What Warren did in releasing the test results was stupid, but not surprising. She wanted to own Trump, thought the media would back her no matter what, and thoroughly believed the lies she was propagating. She so desperately wanted to score points against Trump, particularly as part of an October Surprise against Republicans this election season, that she forsook reason, logic and facts.
The test very clearly disproved her claims that she was Native American, possibly Cherokee. While she does have some Native blood in her, so does nearly everyone else in the CONTINENT! And that’s ignoring the fact that the DNA test didn’t even use Native American DNA, but a mix of Peruvian, Mexican and Colombian, further suggesting that Warren has even less Native American DNA than the test might show.
But none of these things mattered. It didn’t matter that the test showed she has little more Native American ancestry than your average white person at best and far less than your average white person at worst. It didn’t matter that the person in charge of analyzing her DNA used samples that were not Native American to determine whether she was Native American. She wanted to score some points on Trump, was so blinded by that desire, that she inadvertently scored points against herself.
What she did was the equivalent of throwing a basketball the full length of the court, hoping to score a miracle shot, but somehow managing to get the ball to bounce all the way back and score in her own net.
With the sloppy evidence she had of her ancestry: the “high cheekbones”, the “my great, great, great x150 grandmother was Native American”, the “my parents had to elope because my grandparents were bigots”, and whatever else she had, it was a Hail Mary of a shot to try and prove Native American ancestry. And she failed… miserably… to the point even the MSM, who usually go along with the abandoning of logic, facts and reasoning, didn’t want to try and salvage or defend this train-wreck.
We will have to wait and see if this train-wreck properly derails Elizabeth Warren’s chances at a 2020 run. Despite her not having indicated that she would run, in fact, going as far as to suggest she wouldn’t, I didn’t believe her for one second. But after this week, she might actually be forced to seriously consider not running.
Her having claimed being a Native American for decades would hurt her more than you might think. The Harvard Crimson celebrated Warren as a Native American. Fordham Law Review celebrated Warren as being Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color”, which really tells you something about Harvard Law School, doesn’t it?
She identified as Native American and schools like Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School accepted her as Native American. She BENEFITED from calling herself Native American, given that Harvard is considered a federal contractor, with employment practices falling under Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In other words, she benefited from affirmative action AS A WHITE PERSON!
This is not something that would sit well with minorities. Claiming to be a minority, particularly to benefit from doing so, is unethical. While the Left usually would not see much problem with this, given that they’ve been backing Warren’s claims for some time now, it would definitely be seen as a problem in any presidential race, and perhaps any future Senate race, now that she has been basically proven to be a liar.
While she is running in 2018, I don’t know if this would lead to her being beaten in a blue state like Massachusetts. But it does raise concerns for her here, at least to some extent. I don’t imagine she would even get her Party’s nomination in 2020 after this, given how much of a failure Clinton was. While Warren may not be a criminal (who knows?), part of the reason Clinton was defeated was because she was such a flawed candidate. This revelation could now mark Warren as a flawed candidate (despite the fact that she’s a socialist, that’s somehow not enough to make her flawed).
Again, you know you messed up big-time if even the media won’t cover for you. That’s almost a death sentence for Democrats.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
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 delivered right into your inbox. All you have to do is put your email address in the allotted box on the right, click the “subscribe” button and you’re done. So make sure to check it out today!
I recently read a story on Breitbart News about the lie the MSM tells us America is, as opposed to the reality of what America is. In other words, what the MSM tells us about our country is far from the truth.
The story on Breitbart is titled: “Houston Proves Everything the MSM Says About Our ‘Divided’ Country Is a Lie”. The author begins by saying that “even before Hurricane Harvey waylaid southeast Texas, the idea was to write a piece, to offer some perspective on the difference between our corrupt media’s relentless portrayal of a hopelessly divided America, and a little something known as Reality.”
Watching the news, you’ll often find yourself watching an America that is seemingly heavily divided in politics and racial issues. That every single person you see on the street is thinking about Trump, the Confederate statues, racial issues, Antifa or the KKK. In reality, that’s not what always happens.
Sure, people will discuss these things with one another on occasion. When meeting up with friends that share your same opinion in politics, you tend to find yourself more openly talking and discussing these political topics. Whether you’re for Trump or against him, in favor of protecting the Confederate statues or in favor of taking them down, you find yourself happily conversing with your buddies about it. And even if you DON’T share the same opinions as them, you can still have a polite and simple discussion of differing opinions and then end the day with getting a smoothie or going to happy hour and continue to hang out.
But, as the Breitbart story tells: “(through the MSM), we are always portrayed as being at each other’s throats. And not just along political lines,… but along toxified racial, gender, age, region, and lifestyle lines.”
“Basically, the media fabricates the following: that old men (i.e. Trump supporters) are desperate to hold on to their privilege at the expense of brown, black, gay, female, and young Americans. And for this reason, every black, gay, female, and young American must vote Democrat.”
The MSM is in love with identity politics. Identity politics is the idea that, because someone is physically different from someone else, they can be exploited for those differences. They love to remind black people of the dark days of slavery (which Democrats FOUGHT AND KILLED to KEEP), love to tell Hispanics that Trump doesn’t like them because they’re Hispanic (which is an utter lie, this coming from a Hispanic Trump supporter), and love to tell gay people that Christians don’t like them… oh wait, it’s no longer gay people that the Left cares about. It’s now TRANSGENDERS that the Left focuses on. Gay people are a thing of the past. They don’t matter as much anymore to the Left. Now, the big debate is of transgender people, so the Left exploits THEM.
Going further, the Left LOVES to pretend the issues women had in the early 20th century are still prevalent issues today. And they LOVE to play Santa Claus for the lazy Millennial generation that feels entitled to everything and think that they (really, we, since I’m a Millennial) shouldn’t have to work to earn anything and just want free stuff.
The Left LOVES to divide people into categories. They don’t see past skin color and they place a label on people based on what they look like. That’s how shallow they are. To them, if you’re black, you must automatically be a Democrat. If you’re Hispanic, you must automatically hate Trump. If you’re a woman, you must automatically have voted for Hillary, since she’s a woman too. If you’re a Millennial, you must be lazy and hope someone will always be there to take care of you and you don’t have to do anything other than obey the person that is giving you free stuff, AKA the government.
They love to do this because this is the only way they can win. I’ve said it in previous articles, but the Left can only win by lying, cheating and stealing. That they can only win by spreading lies about their opponent and telling positive lies about themselves. That includes lying to black people that they are still victims and it’s the Republicans’ fault (even though the Democrats are the cause to all of their problems beginning with slavery and up to them living below the poverty line due to policies that hurt them). They lie to women, saying that Trump is sexist and that the Left has women’s best interests at heart because women want abortions and free contraceptives.
In reality, the Left MOCKS women who want to be women and have a husband and a family. To the Left, those women are “weak” and an “embarrassment” to their gender. They HATE women who want to be women and HATE men who want to be men.
And lastly, they lie to Millennials, promising them free stuff, when in reality, NOTHING is truly free.
Take a look at Obamacare. You are FORCED to pay for someone else’s insurance, while you yourself get “free” insurance. How is it free if you have to PAY for SOMEONE ELSE to have insurance too? And that person also has to pay for someone else’s insurance. You still have to pay, and you pay for sub-par insurance? And you don’t have any other choice?
You know what that’s like? Cable plans. Personally, I’m not a fan of cable for the same reason I’m not a fan of Obamacare. In order to get something you want, you have to pay for a bunch of other things you DON’T want. Now, at least there’s options when it comes to cable, unlike with Obamacare. Since cable is not a necessity, you can choose not to have it. You can choose the best plan, or simply choose not to pay for it and simply have internet.
A lot of Millennials understand this concept. So why can’t they see the same with Obamacare? Because the Left constantly lies to them about it.
That’s the key: DECEPTION. Deception is how they keep us divided, but why do they want us divided, to answer the title question? It’s a simple warfare strategy: divide and conquer.
The Left divides people because division often can lead to chaos. And the Left THRIVES with chaos. Watching Antifa beating people up, destroying structures and statues and creating chaos, the Left SAVORS it. They salivate watching unruly people fighting like this for THEIR cause.
Why do they want us divided? Because if we’re united, they don’t stand a chance. We united behind Trump against Hillary, and look at the results. The Left creates problems that they blame on us and our ideologies.
They claim the country is divided. Well, if the country is divided, it was divided WELL before Trump. But as it is, this country is not as divided as the MSM says it is. They say we’re getting tired of Trump. But we’re just as much in support of him today as during the campaign trail. They tell us we’re divided, but reality is far from that. Harvey has shown us that when our neighbor needs a hand, we’re more than willing to lend one.
The America they want is one that is divided. The America we live in is one that is united AGAINST the Left. Don’t believe me? Look back at the last couple of elections that the Left made seem so important and tell me who won. Hint: it wasn’t the Leftist.
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!”
We all know Antifa. They are the self-proclaimed anit-fascists looking to “fight” racism. In reality, they just want to fight Trump and America. They hate capitalism because they don’t understand it and love communism for the same reason.
The Daily Wire wrote a story on Antifa, with a reporter going to Laguna Beach, California, where an Antifa protest was taking place. Austen “Fleccas” Fletcher, the reporter, asked multiple people at the protest exactly what and why they were protesting. And them being Leftists, it went about as comedic as you might expect.
When Fletcher asked one female protester what exactly she was protesting, she was having trouble defining the “alt-right”. “It’s kind of like, newer rightist ideology that tries to…” before admitting that she feels like an idiot because she was on the spot and couldn’t come up with anything. You’d think that if you hate something with a passion, you’d know exactly what it is and explain how despicable it is and would be able to justify why you hate it. This female protester was utterly incapable of defining what she considers her enemy. Is it a wonder they are so easily manipulated by the Left?
And she wasn’t the only one. Another protester tried his hand at explaining what his enemy was. “So the ‘alt-right’, I would call it a loose connection of this new wave right-wing sort of… not radicals… but they have a strong emphasis on white supremacy… maybe not even white supremacy, but more capitalism and closed borders.” By the way, those ellipses were not an indication that he said more things and I just summed up what he said. He actually took the time to think and try to structure his explanation.
But I love the fact that he said “maybe not even white supremacy”. THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PROTESTING HERE?! I thought Antifa was protesting against racists ever since Charlottesville. But now, IT’S NOT EVEN ABOUT RACISM?! Are they protesting racism or the ‘alt-right’? If they knew anything about American history, they would be protesting the DEMOCRATS’ RACISM. Because that’s the only party with a long history of treating people as less than people, which continues on to this day.
Another protester wearing a cap with a stuffed penis on his head, detailing exactly what he uses when thinking, was asked about immigration and, of course, advocated for open borders, even while admitting he had to do more “research” on the topic.
Yet another protester suggested that there “are only a small number of estimated Nazis in the country because ‘that’s probably registered Nazis’”, according to the Daily Wire. I see here the perfect teachable moment. If there are people registered to the Nazi party, do you know the exact name of the party? It’s the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. The Nazis are entirely SOCIALIST! And somehow, these protesters either didn’t know or didn’t care, because in the video provided by Fletcher, I saw multiple people wearing shirts that were pro-socialism. Two protesters even were convinced that communism was the way to go in ruling a nation, after claiming that we should “kill” all Nazis in the U.S.
Do they not realize that Nazis are closer to communists than right-wingers? That they are the very thing they claim to hate and be fighting? Are they that uninformed? They must be, since one of the two protesters I just talked about was a self-proclaimed “Libertarian-communist”. Talk about an oxymoron right there. If he knew what either of those things were, he’d know better than to call himself that.
And in case that particular uninformed person is reading this, let me explain the difference. You see, a Libertarian is someone who believes that the government should be as small as possible and should not be involved in people’s lives too much. While still believing there should be a government, a Libertarian wants a government that doesn’t regulate much and doesn’t own much, but simply does the bare minimum. That is to be able to protect its citizens from foreign and domestic threats and pass laws that don’t restrict people’s freedoms too much.
On the other hand, a communist believes the government should be in charge of nearly everything going on and that everyone should be solely dependent on the government. That the government should take care of everyone, give things to everyone for free and be, what we conservatives like to call, a “nanny-state”. So you see, a Libertarian is on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum from a communist. So there’s no such thing as a “Libertarian-communist”. The only people that would ever use that term are severely uninformed and brainwashed people that believe everything the media and the Left tells them without doubting or questioning everything.
And so now, we reach the title question. Is Antifa evil or just ignorant? Depends on who you’re talking about. The people on the ground, the protesters, are most likely simply ignorant and ill-informed pawns. The people that fund Antifa and run it, they are evil. They are the ones pitting American against American. Brother against Brother. Child against Mother. Neighbor against Neighbor. You get the point.
It’s the George Soros’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Barack Obama’s and the Clinton’s of the world that are the evil ones. They pull the strings, and like perfect marionettes, their people dance to their masters’ will. They keep them uninformed or ill-informed to make sure none stray from them. They keep them in the dark, as was plainly evident from Fletcher’s video, for fear of being exposed by the Light. They, like Satan, despise the Light and seek to destroy it.
They delight in seeing Charlottesville go down the way it did. They delight in seeing their pawns do as was instructed. They delight in witnessing chaos from the safety of their own homes. They seek to destroy America and have found the perfect people to attempt to accomplish that task. The more uninformed people there are in America, the more people don’t know how truly vile and evil they are. And the more these evil people can sit in power.
It’s one of the reasons they want to destroy Trump. He stands in the way of that. It’s also one of the reasons they want to eliminate God from this country. They can’t flat out destroy Him, and they know that. But they CAN get people to ignore Him and be unaware of Him. Or beyond that: be angry at Him when things go wrong and ignore Him when things go right.
They deceive people into believing evil is good and good is evil. And these protesters are falling right into their traps.
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
An article on the UK Independent cites another article written in a pro-climate change journal “Nature”. The articles say that “The world has 3 years to start making significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or face the prospect of dangerous global warming.”
I like how they’re using the term “global warming”, which I thought had been deemed “politically incorrect”. Really, it’s scientifically incorrect, but I’ve already discussed that in a previous article. But the important thing to note here is the use of the term. Why would they use that term rather than the usual “climate change” one? Well, it might be because it’s summer! Otherwise, it’d be “climate change”.
The article states: “... (the Nature article) said ‘entire ecosystems’ were already beginning to collapse, summer sea ice was disappearing in the Arctic and coral reefs were dying from the heat.” OK, there’s some things to talk about here.
But seriously, they think ice melting in the summer is a big deal that could cause catastrophic disaster in the world? But that’s just what the Left does. I've said this multiple times: it's all about DECEPTION! This deception, however, is of a somewhat different kind. This deception is not about Trump colluding with Russia or his approval numbers. This deception is about an insane ideology (bordering on religious cult) that tells people the Earth is sacred and it’s dying and it’s all our fault.
And they will lie through their teeth about it. They will throw in any kind of b.s. statistic to get a reaction out of people. If people sense that the world is coming to an end, they will want people in charge that will ensure the world is saved. THAT is precisely what the Left wants. They want people to be AFRAID! DEATHLY AFRAID! That, if we don’t do something right this second, the world will reach a point of no return in 3 years, according to this article. The thing about it, though, is that the Left has said multiple times that we’ve already reached a point of no return. Al Gore said, in 2006, that the world would reach a point of no return by 2016. Ted Danson in 1988, said that the world had 10 years before the oceans died.
Every. Single. Time. They. Are. Wrong. And they know it. But that doesn’t matter to them. If they can get people believing this stuff, who cares if it doesn’t come true? If it helps get Democrats elected and socialism to slowly, but surely replace capitalism in America, who cares if absolutely none of this happens? And who cares if their figures make absolutely no sense?
The article states: “Since the 1880s, the world’s temperature has risen by about 1 degree Celsius because of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.” OK, let’s pretend that’s true. But who is to say that HUMANS are responsible? The fact that the world's temperature has risen doesn't mean humans are the cause. The fact that one thing follows another doesn't make it a cause-effect relationship. This reminds me of a story about a farmer who didn't want to get up too early. He had this rooster which would crow before the sun rose. The farmer (a liberal, most likely) observed that the sun would rise after the rooster crew so he had no better idea than to KILL the rooster to prevent the sun from rising. This climate change narrative is exactly like the farmer story. Liberals have observed that the world temperature has risen but they truly don't know why. They confuse cause-effect with events simply following other events - like the rooster and the sun story. You and I know that no matter what happens to the rooster, the sun will rise. In other words, there's simply NO EVIDENCE that humans have anything to do with the rise in temperatures - and that's even assuming the technology used in 1880 can be considered reliable today.
How they get anyone to believe their b.s. is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if they’re actually brutally slaughtering any kind of logic or scientific sense. “At least they’re trying”, liberals will say. Yeah, they’re trying to destroy your minds and make you insanely dumb. Dumb enough that you can’t question their logic but not so dumb that you can’t figure out how to use a voting machine. Because, at the end of the day, that’s what it’s about.
Not about “saving the Earth”. Not about protecting wildlife. No, it’s about POWER. It’s about being IN CHARGE OF YOU! Of what you think and of what you say.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
A video from Project Veritas, a conservative non-profit organization dedicated to investigating corruption in the U.S., depicts a CNN Supervising Producer, John Bonifield, revealing that the “Russia collusion” story was “mostly bull****.”
According to Bonifield, the biggest reason they even run the story in the first place, despite a lack of evidence, is because of ratings. An undercover Project Veritas journalist met and talked with Bonifield, discussing the Russia story. “Then why is CNN constantly, like, Russia this, Russia that?”, the PV journalist asks. Bonifield responds with “Because it’s ratings… Our ratings are incredible right now.”
And he’s right. According to a Nielsen chart, CNN’s May ratings were significantly higher this year than the previous year. But this one line (there’s more that I’ll get to, don’t worry) is insanely telling of the mindset in the MSM. The biggest reason they run the “Russian collusion” story at all is not to destroy Trump and damage his reputation (though, they certainly hope to accomplish that), but to MAKE MONEY! CNN is a business, after all, as Bonifield says.
I just find it hilarious that, while they are largely socialist in nature, they prioritize making money and using capitalism to their advantage. They use capitalism to denounce capitalism. And it’s not like focusing on the Russia story was a decision by station managers or on-air “talent”. The decision to talk about Russia non-stop came from the head honcho of CNN, CEO Jeff Zucker. According to Bonifield, “The CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting, ‘good job everybody covering the climate accords (which they covered for a couple of days), but we’re done with it. Let’s get back to Russia.’ So even the climate accords, he was like, okay, a day or so but we’re moving back to Russia”.
Of course, that’s to be expected. Covering the farce that is the Russia story garners them a lot of views and a lot of money. But that’s not all that the undercover PV journalist managed to get out of Bonifield in this video. According to Bonifield, he thinks that “there are a lot of liberal CNN viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized. And I think if we would have behaved that way with President Obama and scrutinized everything that he was doing with as much scrutiny as we applied to Donald Trump, I think our viewers would’ve been turned off. I think they would’ve felt like we were attacking him (Obama).”
So even he admits that there’s massive Anti-Trump bias in the news business. Now, this is something we, conservatives and Trump supporters, have known for ages. But to see a CNN producer saying these very things is great. Even he has to admit they’ve been treating Trump unfairly because they believe most, if not all of their viewers want to see Trump be heavily scrutinized and destroyed by them.
Then, the video begins to talk more about the Russia story. The PV journalist begins: “But honestly, you think the whole Russia **** is just bull****?” To which Bonifield replies with: “Could be bull****. I mean, it’s mostly bull**** right now. Like, we don’t have any big giant proof. But then they say, ‘well, there’s still an investigation going on’… I don’t know, if you were finding something, we would know about it. The way these leaks happen, they’d leak it. It’d leak. If it was something really good, it would leak… I just refuse to believe that if they had something really good like that, that wouldn’t leak because we’ve been getting all these other leaks. So, I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging.”
Mighty powerful stuff right there. And it looks like I was right all along, wasn’t I? I’ve said in multiple articles that, if there was any evidence, the MSM would know about it by now. That it’s been half a year since the election, half a year since the accusations began, and the FBI and MSM have yet to find anything real that ties Trump with Russia, or that shows Russia hacking our elections in some way. And now, we have an MSM spokesperson, if you will, ADMITTING TO THIS VERY FACT! From his own words, he says that the story is largely b.s. and that if there was something, anything, real and big out there, they would know it by now!
But you see? Like I said in the last article: this is about deception. They know they have no real proof and likely will NEVER have any real proof, but they will still run this story because 1) it’s garnering good ratings for CNN and 2) they want people to BELIEVE there was foul play in the 2016 election. The MSM KNOWS THEY’RE FULL OF IT, but they will never drop this ‘issue’ because it’s profitable for them.
2 Corinthians 11:13-14
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”
A very short article written this past weekend in the Washington Times says that Rep. Adam Schiff claims there is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. I think the best part about this article is that since it’s so insanely short (5 paragraphs), there is no actual piece of evidence to talk about.
Here’s the title of the article: “Rep. Adam Schiff says there is ‘evidence’ that Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” Now, if you’re a raging liberal, you’ll read this headline and think “Yes! Finally, there is someone out there with some evidence!” But no. The sad reality for liberals is that the article contains absolutely no evidence of collusion.
This is what the first three sentences say: “The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee says he believes there is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the election. ‘Well, I think there is evidence,’ Rep. Adam Schiff said Sunday on ABC’s ‘This Week’. ‘I can’t go into the particulars of our closed investigation. But I also think there is evidence of obstruction. But in both cases, I would say, whether there is some evidence doesn’t mean there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
Do you see what they’re doing here? They wrote an article that’s about as significant today as it was 6 months ago. What I mean by that is this: THEY ARE SAYING THE SAME THING THEY SAID HALF A YEAR AGO! There is absolutely nothing new in this story. Everyone on the Left believes Trump colluded with Russia! It’s redundant to write an article saying this one other person believes it too!
All Rep. Schiff is saying is that “he thinks there is evidence.” You know what? So does every single Democrat politician, voter and news media person! This article literally brings nothing new to the table. It’s a nothing burger! And you know it’s nothing because EVEN SCHIFF HIMSELF SAID HE COULDN’T GO INTO THE DETAILS! That’s basically what every single person trying to come up with evidence of collusion has said! “We can’t go into the details, but we certainly believe, here at the Liberal Bureau of Insane People, that there is strong evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.” It’s the same thing over and over again.
But that’s simply a leftist deception tactic. What they’re trying to do here is keep people’s attention on this ‘collusion’ business so that they don’t forget the Left is looking into it. They simply want to remind people they’re looking for any way possible to impeach Trump. The reason why? It’s been 5 months since Trump’s inauguration. The Left promised that he’d be gone by now and are no closer to accomplishing that today as they were back then. It’s clear that Leftist voters are getting impatient.
Let’s not forget that only a week ago, an insane socialist nut tried to kill Republican members of Congress. He was a Leftist that got insanely, and I do mean INSANELY, impatient with trying to get rid of Trump that he decided to take matters into his own evil hands and try to eradicate the opposition. And upon the whole country learning of this act of terrorism, there have been plenty of Leftist voters on social media calling this criminal a ‘hero’ and wishing he had accomplished far more than he did.
So, in an effort to remind people that the Left is trying its hardest to impeach Trump, they publish stories like these that get Leftists energized and excited that they might be getting closer to accomplishing their goal, only to find out in the 5 paragraph article that there is nothing new to report. Only that this one other person that you may or may not have heard of believes the exact same thing as any other liberal believes and can offer no new information on the subject.
And do you know why they will never come up with anything? Aside from the fact that Trump DIDN’T collude with Russia? The Left is more than capable of digging up information they want and need to further their agenda. If there was anything to uncover, believe me, they would've already found it.
If you’ve been paying attention to the news recently, you know of the van attack in a London mosque. The driver of the van was a 47-year-old white male who injured 10 Muslims in that attack, according to Reuters. Usually, the media takes AGES to find out information about an attacker. But that’s only when the attacker is a Muslim Jihadist. And even then, the media is insanely careful not to call it a terrorist attack if they can avoid it.
And yet, Reuters found out quickly that the attacker was 47 years old and a white male THE SAME DAY AS THE ATTACK OCCURRED! So you see, the Left can find the information they need very quickly and efficiently. The fact that it’s been 5 months since Trump’s inauguration and roughly 7 months since the election (and the start of the allegations of collusion) and the Left has yet to come up with ANY piece of evidence against Trump means that they never will. And the reason they never will is because TRUMP DIDN’T COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA TO GET HIMSELF ELECTED!
Sadly, the fact that they will never come up with any evidence doesn’t mean that the Left will simply give up. They will never stop lying to people. They will never stop trying to deceive the masses and convince them that Trump cheated. Evil never stops trying to do evil. And Evil will never stop trying to eliminate Good.
“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”
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...