3.28 million Americans filed for unemployment last week. 3.28 MILLION. Let’s not even begin talking about how this is a record-high, easily destroying the previous record set decades ago. Let’s not even begin talking about how the economic “experts” predicted roughly half that number before it was published. Over THREE MILLION Americans have lost their jobs in the past week. Where is the relief package? Being voted on today by the witch called Nancy Pelosi. Not yesterday, when the news came out. Not yesterday, when people could’ve been helped. Not DAYS AGO when the Senate had a bill prepared that was approved BIPARTISANLY before Chuck Schumer decided to screw the American people (with help from Nasty Nancy) and back out of the deal, only to vote on a VERY SIMILAR package days later that included more communist wish-list items.
 
The Democrats decided to SCREW the American people and let them SUFFER just so the economy could take a massive hit, just so they can attack President Trump (some in the media were all too quick to pull the trigger on that one) and just so they can attempt to keep their permanent political underclass chained up to their bony wrists.
 
If I sound angry right now, you can bet your sweet behind it’s because I DEFINITELY AM. Now, allow me to put some things into context, because, while I definitely am angry as hell at the Democrats trying to screw over the American people (while giving all the money to their rich, elitist friends in academia), there is cause for calm despite the troubling present times.
 
Perhaps the single biggest reason is simply that this is a far more temporary situation than any other economic crisis.
 
You see, the economic crises of the past have all been caused due to an inside issue. The 2007/08 financial crisis was the result of the credit crisis, an issue that would take a long time to solve almost regardless of who is president (though it would’ve helped if Obama didn’t put a strangle-hold on businesses and the economy for his entire tenure). There were other financial crises at the time, such as the housing market bubble popping, companies like GM getting bailed out (a big reason as to why I oppose Boeing or any other big business being bailed out), etc.
 
People couldn’t get credit, couldn’t get a new house, tons of people were unemployed and the country went into recession. It wasn’t anywhere near as bad as the Great Depression in the late 1920s, but it was bad nonetheless.
 
The news of over three million Americans being laid off in a single week is absolutely awful (and expect fairly similar numbers to come in the future if something isn’t done about it, which I will cover momentarily) and Congress was twiddling its thumbs about how much money to give to Howard University, how much money to give to useless crap like wind and solar energy, how LITTLE money it would give back to the American people (and basing it off of tax returns from two years ago, which is mind-numbingly idiotic as the situations are much different for many people between then and now, so someone who made $100k in 2018 but is now unemployed does not get any money, but someone who made $70k in 2018 and is still employed will get the money), how much money to give to illegal immigrant programs like DACA while detracting money for the wall and the biggest joke of all, how much money these Congresspeople will pay THEMSELVES, as if they needed the pay raise they are giving themselves.
 
But regardless of what selfish idiocy Congress was debating and negotiating at a time when people are SUFFERING because they can’t go to work precisely because the GOVERNMENT told them they can’t go to work, this is a financial crisis (that is only beginning) that can easily be mitigated and halted fairly quickly.
 
How? Open the economy back up for most people. Now, hear me out people who disagree and tell me that we need to keep it shut down because of the Chinese coronavirus. I’m not saying that the virus is no longer important neither am I trying to downplay it.
 
However, let’s take note of a few things. First of all, remember all the doomsayer “experts” who predicted hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths in most countries? Well, they’ve basically said “woops” and revised their predictions to a few tens of thousands. Right now, we have barely just crossed the 1,000-death line in the country, with at least TEN times as many people having died from the flu in the same time period (despite the same self-isolation and social distancing measures taking place in that time span, really pointing to a higher death rate for the flu).
 
I’m not saying that the Wuhan virus is “just the flu”. What I am saying is that the two are comparable because they are ROUGHLY the same type of disease, both being the cold virus, both being contagious and neither having a cure.
 
Second, you can both have procedures in place so that the most at-risk individuals, meaning those in their late 50s and 60s, are self-isolating and self-quarantining, being taken care of, while having the vast majority of the work force go out to work with little to no chance for death.
 
Now, I know what some may say: “But the point of not going out to work is to not catch it and risk passing it along to older people, particularly those we love in our own home.”
 
I understand that, but here’s the thing: you can still isolate yourself from your loved one AND WORK TO GIVE THEM FOOD, SHELTER, ETC.! Because you know what’s worse than catching the virus? Catching the virus while out of work, out of supplies, and risking living on the streets, maybe even being driven to suicide.
 
Most people cannot afford to have the economy shut down like this. They either do not earn enough to be able to save a bunch of money, or are altogether not practical at saving money. And this is without even taking into consideration small businesses which are basically gutted under this situation.

As an example, take what Zachery Ty Bryan, a Hollywood actor from the 1990s sitcom "Home Improvement" (he played Brad Taylor, the eldest son), wrote in an op-ed for Fox News: "[D]uring a recent conversation with a longtime friend who works in the entertainment industry, she expressed concern that if the coronavirus shutdown goes on too long, they won't be able to make their monthly housing payment." Zach is talking about the working class in Hollywood, the people who make the shows and movies run in the first place, not really being able to work and therefore not being able to make payments for things they need to live.
 
When Trump said that we can’t let the cure be worse than the disease, this is what he was talking about: letting the economy shut down out of fear of a disease THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE will survive.
 
Those in the workforce tend to be those who would survive getting this disease. They don’t need to be quarantined or self-isolated. They can go to work. They might worry about an older loved one getting the disease as a result, but if they can barely feed themselves, they HAVE to go to work.
 
What’s more, who knows exactly how many people have the disease and will survive it anyway? The Chinese government did whatever it could to basically weaponize this, shutting down any whistleblowers, keeping outside help from coming in, lying to everyone about how well they are containing the virus and allowing for people in the VERY REGION to travel outside of China.
 
This disease has been in the U.S. for months now, and we just barely got to 1,000 deaths. Now, that’s not nothing, and I feel sorry for the loved ones of those who passed as a result, but you can have those least likely to get the disease (or, rather, least likely to die from it) working largely uninhibited.
 
I’m not calling for the economy to be opened up for Trump’s sake or for the sake of his re-election chances. I doubt the vast majority of people unemployed would blame Trump for it (though the media and the Democrats will do what they can to blame him) because it can be pretty obvious on whom the fault actually lies: the Chinese Communist Party (primarily, and they should be forced to pay all reparations for the damage they have caused) and the Democrats stalling out the relief package that was ALREADY AGREED TO by Democrats, waiting to pass it and hurting Americans in the process. I have no doubt in my mind that Trump will CRUSH either Joe or Bernie come November.
 
So I’m not calling for the economy to be opened for the benefit of Trump; I’m calling for the economy to be opened back up because people NEED to be able to work. They can’t afford this shut down any longer. No economy can operate with people not working. This isn’t prioritizing the economy over people’s health. It’s prioritizing their ability to work, earn a living, afford their medical care (for those who still can. Thanks, Obama) and making sure that the very temporary virus crisis does not evolve into a long-term financial crisis.
 
Once people have the ability to work, there will be mass hiring sprees with people getting their jobs back, which is why I am relatively calm about this. It’s bad right now, and it might get worse before it gets better, but it’s very temporary. Once the virus stops being such a massive deal, once people are allowed to go back to work, there will be plenty of job openings. But not if this problem is extended, businesses lose tons of income and are incapable of hiring people back, which is why the economy needs to be opened back up over the next few days or weeks (hopefully, by Easter, like Trump suggested). It cannot wait much, if any, longer than that.
 
I hope and pray that the Democrats turn to God and stop screwing people over, but if they do not, I pray that they will face the direst of consequences electorally come November. These communists cannot be allowed to win because it is clear where their priorities lie: themselves. They will do whatever they can to ensure they have their slaves; their permanent underclass.
 
Philippians 2:3
“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The fake news media will always do its best to attack any dissenters and run cover for their own side, even when it is blatantly obvious what they are trying to do. This was the case with the Washington Post recently, as they tried to persuade people that Joe Biden didn’t say what he said in the last Democrat debate.
 
I briefly covered a bit of that debate, having largely focused on how both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders confused the Wuhan virus for the swine flu (Joe), called the swine flu “N1H1” (Joe), confused the virus for SARS (Joe) and confused the virus for Ebola (Sanders). However, there was one part of the debate that I also covered even more briefly and that’s the fact that, when discussing oil drilling and fracking, Joe Biden adopted a far-Left stance on it, saying there’d be “no new fracking” and “no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. Ends.”
 
Despite this being a clearly definitive statement demonstrating Joe Biden’s sincere desire to ban all fracking and eliminate any and all ability for the oil industry to work in this country, leaving us to be 100% reliant on foreign oil, a complete reversal of the Trump policy, Joe’s aides quickly got to work trying to walk back those statements because maintaining that stance would essentially gift Trump with a 49-state landslide victory.
 
Specifically, the aides tried saving some sort of face, saying that Joe’s stance remains unchanged, but that he simply opposed new fracking and drilling on public lands, not outright banning all American oil industry’s ability to drill in the country, which is practically what he said during the debate. So, questions regarding whether or not Biden lied about his stance during the debate began to flood the campaign.
 
Enter the Washington Post with their “Pinocchios” fact-checking system.
 
According to the Washington Free Beacon: “A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn’t lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate. Rather, Biden had simply ‘described his fracking stance inaccurately.’”
 
The WaPo gave Biden “Zero Pinocchios” for saying that he intended to ban fracking and oil drilling, instead, providing the excuse that Biden simply had “misspoken” and “his position was the same as ever”, merely opposing fracking on public land.
 
The WaPo cited “clarifications” from the Biden staff post-debate and cited coverage in the Wall Street Journal saying that Joe’s position was the same as the one listed on his campaign website, dismissing any and all who cited Joe during the debate verbatim. Ultimately, the WaPo said that Biden “described his fracking stance inaccurately,” like I said, which is, of course, a load of crap.
 
Joe Biden is someone we KNOW has mental problems at this point in his life (and always has been a bit dull and bad with words). He has been documented routinely misremembering what state he is in, has confused his wife with his sister and vice versa, often misspeaks (having called the Wuhan virus both the swine flu and SARS, while also calling the swine flu “N1H1”) and is very, very obviously not mentally fit to RUN for president, let alone actually hold the position.
 
So the argument that he misspoke COULD be plausible… if he hadn’t had been so definitive with his answer. Again, he said: “no new fracking” and “no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. Ends.”
 
So either Joe was lying during the debate about his position or his campaign staff, and subsequently the fake news media, are lying about his position now. That was a clear and definite answer and he didn’t even slur his speech when he said it. The mistake he made was saying the quiet part out loud, leading his campaign staff to run damage control as a result.
 
Let me tell you something: if Trump had said something so definitive that the Left could pick apart and attack him over, the media would not give a hoot about what his campaign staff was trying to say or do. They would 100% attack Trump over his statement, and if it was definitive as that, it would make sense for them to do so. But when it’s a Democrat saying the quiet part out loud like that, it doesn’t matter what they said during the debate or the definitive words used to convey his true feelings and desires surrounding the topic. No, what matters is what his campaign website says and what his campaign staff says, even though the media would never give such a benefit of the doubt to a Republican candidate.
 
Joe Biden, somehow, is considered the “moderate” candidate for many in the media. Saying things like that that are very obviously not moderate takes can be disastrous for his campaign (at least in the general, because the lunatic Leftist base loves it when America is groveling at the feet of foreign powers), so people have to run damage control. But Biden is very clearly not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination. If being a “moderate” simply means not kissing Castro’s butt, that’s terrifying.
 
Biden is no moderate. The ONLY thing I could possibly give him kudos for is his attack on Medicare-for-All and pointing out how that sort of system is not working at all for Italy, but he still supports government Medicare and keeping the disastrous Obamacare system in place, so one could hardly consider him a “moderate” (either that or “moderate” has moved far enough Left that government-run healthcare is a “moderate” stance, which is also terrifying).
 
As a result of Biden’s clear Left-wing principles, I cannot be surprised at all that he would sincerely want a ban on fracking and destroying our oil industry. He doesn’t care how much of a complete disaster such a ban would be for the U.S., and is very clear in that. But his campaign knew that saying that in such unambiguous terms makes him even more likely to get stomped by Trump come November, so they run cover for the guy, with the help of the Washington Post, who deserve 5 Pinocchios for saying Biden simply “misspoke” or phrased his stance “inaccurately” when that clearly was not the case.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Amidst the Wuhan virus pandemic, the DNC decided to still hold one of their debates, though without an audience and having the two debaters a good six feet apart from each other to encourage social distancing. But regardless of there being a virus out there or not, the highlights still included Joe’s cognitive decline (although Bernie also showed a bit of cognitive decline at one point too).
 
When discussing the relevant topic of the Wuhan virus (which no Leftist will dare call it that in spite of the very clear and serious damage the Chinese have caused to the whole world), the former Vice President mistakenly said that the Obama administration had dealt with the Coronavirus, when in fact it had to deal with the swine flu (H1N1): “We’ve been through this before with the coronavirus”; once he realized his mistake, he called the swine flu “N1H1” “… excuse me, we’ve been through this before dealing with… the N1H1”, and outright forgot the name of the Ebola virus, instead calling it “what happened in Africa.” At one point, he also mistook the Wuhan virus for SARS.
 
Definitely not as massive blunders as he had made previously, but they show the consistency of his declining mental health. However, Joe wasn’t the only one to have made a mistake in this debate. Bernie Sanders also made a similar mistake, often confusing the Wuhan virus for Ebola, saying “The Ebola crisis, in my view, exposes the dysfunctionality of our healthcare system.”
 
Funny enough, Joe Biden actually said something that I agree with, in that he argued against Bernie saying that Italy, which currently has 24,747 total cases (according to Worldometers) and nearly 2,000 deaths, has single-payer healthcare: “With all due respect to Medicare-for-All, you have a single-payer system in Italy. It doesn’t work there. Medicare-for-All… would not solve the problem at all.”
 
So kudos to Joe Biden for that little tid bit of not going straight up communist (though he did also support many other far-Left policies throughout the debate).
 
Fox News reported on the rest of the debate, saying:
 
“Throughout, Biden staked out unusually left-wing positions for a front runner – including promising that no one would be deported in his first 100 days in office, and by asserting that there would be ‘no new fracking’ under his administration. Fracking, while opposed by environmental activists, has revitalized the economies of battleground states and is expected to be a major issue in the general election.”
 
He also promised that he would not allow for the oil industry to continue to drill anywhere at all, essentially promising to destroy that entire industry, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without a job (and sending us into an energy crisis the likes of which had only been found in fiction). So the guy still has enough cognitive ability to demonstrate how much of a socialist he is, despite the fact that so many are trying to paint him as a “moderate” candidate.
 
Apart from his hardline attack on Medicare-for-All, he still said that treatment, testing, etc. for the Wuhan virus should be completely free (meaning the taxpayer is left with the bill, so it’s not free and not very different from Medicare-for-All in the first place), promised not to deport any illegal immigrants, even if they committed major crimes apart from illegally crossing the border such as rape, murder, etc. for his first 100 days (which is a bit of an odd argument because it makes zero sense to approach it that way even if you believe in “illegal immigrant rights”), promised to eliminate fracking, which has enriched middle America, and promised to eliminate all oil drilling and operations. All of these promises are far-Left, socialist promises, so it makes no sense for anyone to genuinely believe the guy is in any way, shape, manner or form a “moderate”.
 
It’s kind of worrying that the guy’s mental abilities are leaving him, but he can still remember to be a complete authoritarian should he choose to. Again, there weren’t as many blunders that were quite as big as the other ones, but they were still very much present.
 
Confusing the virus we are currently facing with the one we faced back in 2009, confusing the virus the Obama administration had to face by calling it “N1H1”, confusing the Wuhan virus for SARS and outright not remembering the Ebola virus, despite the fact that that was the last major virus people were talking about prior to the Wuhan virus highlights the decline of his cognitive senses.
 
Proverbs 10:23
“Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For the past couple of months, President Trump has been trying to keep the Coronavirus from being anywhere near as devastating here as it has been in Italy, South Korea, Iran and China, where the virus has been at its worst, while also attempting to calm down a panicked stock market that has seen days of thousand-point crashes and thousand-point surges (most recently, it’s just been crashing). Regardless of what the President does, however, it is utterly wrong in the eyes of a bloodthirsty media who had been desperate for something, anything, that would destroy Trump, even if at the cost of Americans’ livelihoods and lives.
 
And this last Wednesday, the President issued an address from the Oval Office in which he detailed what steps his administration had already taken, what steps it would heretofore be taking both health-wise and financially, and reassuring the American people that this is merely a temporary setback in what has been, for the past three years, a booming economy (and the economy is still doing well outside the stock market, as weekly jobless claims fell to 211,000 v 218,000 expected, so more good economic news that would otherwise lead to market rallies).
 
But what has the enemy of the people, the fake news media, talked about as a response? The fact that President Trump noted that the virus came from China, which Jim Acosta and Joe Biden believe is racist and xenophobic to point out (even though it’s an irrefutable fact and China is to blame for the virus spreading as bad as it has within the mainland and in the rest of the world due to trying to shut people who would talk about it down and keeping the WHO and CDC from helping them back in December), and, funny enough, that he wasn’t specific enough about what the American people should do (even though he was).
 
Here are the most important parts of the President’s address:
 
“Our team is the best anywhere in the world. At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years. We declared a public health emergency and issued the highest level of travel warning on other countries as the virus spread its horrible infection.”
 
For those who said that Trump wasn’t doing enough (which the media had been saying pretty much all of February and early March before the address), that is patently untrue. Chuck Schumer had offered his opinion on that travel restriction on China and believed it was fueled by Trump’s “racism” and “xenophobia”. They thought he was overreacting in January but switched it up to “he’s not doing enough” when they accused him of saying that the virus was “a hoax” when in reality, he was referring to the Democrats’ and mainstream media’s politicization of the virus as being his fault (remember when an NYT op-ed suggested people call it the “Trumpvirus”? Because I do).
 
The President was the first one to take this seriously, appointing VP Pence as head of the Coronavirus Task Force, which members of the media and Democrats mocked because he supposedly “doesn’t believe in science”, coming from the people who believe in anthropogenic climate change and that there are a bazillion genders.
 
Anyone claiming he had not been doing enough or that he was underreacting to the coronavirus is simply either wrong or lying.
 
Continuing: “To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days. The new rules will go into effect Friday at midnight. These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground.”
 
“There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval. Anything coming from Europe to the United States is what we are discussing. These restrictions will also not apply to the United Kingdom.” (Worth mentioning that the President misspoke here and the prohibitions won’t affect trade and cargo, only travelers).
 
“Earlier this week, I met with the leaders of health insurance industry who have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments, extend insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.”
 
“Additionally, last week, I signed into law an $8.3 billion funding bill to help CDC and other government agencies fight the virus and support vaccines, treatments, and distribution of medical supplies. Testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly, day by day.”
 
“My administration is coordinating directly with communities with the largest outbreaks, and we have issued guidance on school closures, social distancing, and reducing large gatherings.”
 
“For all Americans, it is essential that everyone take extra precautions and practice good hygiene. Each of us has a role to play in defeating this virus. Wash your hands, clean often-used surfaces, cover your face and mouth if you sneeze or cough, and most of all, if you are sick or not feeling well, stay home.”
 
Someone should tape that last part of his address to Brian Stelter’s office door (if he has one) because following the address, he tweeted: “Trump’s Oval Office address was exactly what his Fox wingmen needed – now Sean Hannity et al can celebrate the new travel ban – while evading the real scourge of community spread within the US.”
 
He also replied to someone, saying: “Get specific, dude. Have you heard Trump or Hannity fully address what the US should do to stop community spread?”
 
I get the feeling Brian wasn’t actually paying attention to what the President was saying, otherwise he wouldn’t be qualified to work at CNN. The President was very specific, right at that point where I stopped quoting him, about what people should do to prevent themselves from getting the virus: practice good hygiene, wash your hands, maintain cleanliness in your home, cover your face and mouth when sneezing or coughing so as to not harm someone else, and stay home if you are feeling unwell.
 
What part of that was not specific, Brian?
 
In any case, the President continued by saying: “To ensure that working Americans impacted by the virus can stay home without fear of financial hardship, I will soon be taking emergency action, which is unprecedented, to provide financial relief. This will be targeted for workers who are ill, quarantined, or caring for others due to coronavirus.”
 
“[T]o provide extra support for American workers, families and businesses, tonight I am announcing the following additional actions: I am instructing the Small Business Administration to exercise available authority to provide capital and liquidity to firms affected by the coronavirus.”
 
“Finally, I am calling on Congress to provide Americans with immediate payroll tax relief.”
 
Could you believe that the Left and fake news media is taking issue with people keeping more of their money and limiting travel to areas that have been horribly affected by the virus?
 
They really do want us all sick, dying and poor if it helps them defeat Donald Trump. These people are sick and I don’t mean with the coronavirus.
 
When sparing the CCP’s feelings by avoiding recognizing the virus came from China is more important than taking this seriously; when attacking the President for “not doing enough” and then attacking him for “doing too much” is more important than people’s health and safety; when any narrative that helps them, even at the expense of the American people, is more important than the health of said people, you know you are dealing with some scum-of-the-earth type of people.
 
At no point was Trump downplaying this and it’s better for him to overreact with travel restrictions (I still don’t know how that is an overreaction) and financial aid to people who could be affected than to actually downplay it and underreact (as the media and the Left believed he should’ve done back in January, when he was leading everyone else on this).
 
The destruction of their political opponent is more important than your health and safety. And they want to claim he is the tyrant and that he is Putin-like?
 
Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Considering the uncomfortably high percentage of young people who say they favor socialism over capitalism, or would describe themselves as socialists (they aren’t really socialists, they don’t even know what it actually means or does), I’d say I am okay with this reality: young people really just don’t show up to vote.
 
Now, that’s not to say that they don’t vote at all, of course, they just really don’t vote with anywhere close to the same rate as older generations do, and this has been the case for a long time, historically.
 
Census.gov has an article that details elections (1980-2016) that display the turnout rates by demographic each and every presidential election. One of the figures they show is fairly eye-opening:

​As you can see, there are four lines in this line chart that display different voting blocs according to age. From 1980 to 2016, we see that voter turnout for people ages 65 or older is often virtually tied with those aged 45-64. In 1980, 45-64 year olds voted at a recorded rate of 74.4%, those 65 and older voted at a rate of 69.8 and 30-44 year olds were close behind, at 67.2%. But those aged 18-29 are WAY below any of the aforementioned age groups in terms of turnout. In the 1980 election, only 48.2% of people in that age range turned out to vote, 19 less points than 30 to 44-year-olds.
 
And it’s been fairly similar in each and every presidential election from that point on. We can see that the youth vote spiked in 1992, likely to vote for Bill Clinton, but that still was almost 16 points less than the next oldest group and 23.1 points less than those 65 or older.
 
In 1996, turnout rates crashed for pretty much every category, but none harder than 18 to 29-year-olds, who turned out at a rate of only 39.6%. As time went on, the rate began to go back up to its usual rates, once again getting another rate of above 50% in 2008 to vote for Obama, but after that, it went down once again.
 
And this last Super Tuesday was virtually no different, statistically. According to The Inquisitr, “According to results from the NBC News exit poll released at around 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday – two hours before the first poll closings in eastern states – only 13% of Democratic voters in the Super Tuesday primaries are between the ages of 18 and 29. That is 10 percentage points fewer than the second-least likely voters – the 30-44 age group, which made up 23% of Tuesday’s electorate.”
 
Voters between 45 and 64 turned out at 35% and those 65 and older turned out at 29%. While the actual numbers may be vastly different from the Census figure above, we still see that the turnout rate for 18 to 29-year-olds is far less, by 10 points or more, than the older voting ranges. There is a ten-point difference between 18-29 year olds and 30-44 year olds in that Super Tuesday electorate, as the Inquisitr noted. The difference widens to 16 between 18-29 year olds and 65 and older, and the difference stands at 22 entire points between those 18-29 and 45-64.
 
This largely explains just why it is that Bernie Sanders lost all but two of the states in this last Super Tuesday (March 10th), just barely winning in the largely socialist state of Washington by 2,084 votes (and both Bernie and Joe got the same number of delegates in both Washington and North Dakota, the other state Bernie won, so those victories didn’t really matter for Crazy Bernie). Bernie’s campaign largely hinges on his ability to attract the youth vote.
 
On social media, you may see plenty of young Bernie Sanders supporters, like that “OK boomer” dancing girl and many others, but they largely do not turn out to vote, even when their guy needs as much youth support as possible in order to beat Joe Biden. All the pro-Bernie hashtags on Twitter, all the pro-communist t-shirts sold, all the pro-socialist memes posted on the internet don’t really matter because the young people behind the hashtags, t-shirts and memes are simply not turning out to vote.
 
Now, forgive me if I sound annoyed at that, because I am not at all annoyed in the least. The fact that young people, those who are fresh out of, or still in, college and have been brainwashed by their college professors to believe communism is good and capitalism is bad, don’t vote is a good thing, in my opinion. If they turned out to vote at roughly the same rates as at least the next older voting bloc, the 30-44 year olds, I believe that would largely skew a lot of elections to the Left. So I am glad that younger people largely don’t go out to vote.
 
The fact that 18, 19 and 20-year-olds can vote, I think, is not even wise at any rate. There are good arguments for RAISING the voting age, as opposed to lowering it to allow for kids who are 16 years old to vote, as the Democrats want to do (seemingly from these figures, it really wouldn’t make that much of a difference). Someone who is 18 years old, one who just recently had to ask permission to go to the restroom (and had to be scolded for saying “can I” instead of “may I”), should not have the responsibility of deciding who runs the country. Arguably, the voting age should be at least 25 years old, as that is the age when the human brain fully develops (I say this, recognizing that would make me ineligible to vote, but I still think that’d be better than what he have now).
 
Kids who are going into college or recently are coming out of college with the Communist Manifesto forcibly drilled into their brains should not be making the decision as to whom runs the country. Thankfully, even while they are allowed to vote, it seems that they largely simply do not go out to vote at the rate that older generations tend to do.
 
Looking back at that line chart, the 2016 turnout rate was two points lower than the rate it was in 1980. From that election to the most recent one, youth turnout has largely not been extremely high or varied. Even in the election where youth turnout was the highest (in the chart), it was still, again, almost 16 points lower than the next oldest voting block and each age range saw at least some increase in turnout rate that election.
 
Young people largely simply do not go out to vote. I don’t know if it’s because they are uninspired (you’d think Bernie’s “revolution” would be fairly inspiring to this Marxist generation) or because they are too lazy or do not know when there is an election or at what time polls close, but they simply don’t show up to vote. This has historically been the case since at least 1980 but more than likely going back further (Joseph Curl of the Daily Wire notes how young people protested against Nixon and the Vietnam War but he still won re-election in a massive landslide in 1972, so that goes to show that this has been the case since even before 1980).
 
Whatever the reason may be, I can’t say I am dissatisfied. I don’t want Marxists in the White House or in Congress, so if Millennials largely aren’t going out to vote for such people, fine by me.
 
Psalm 119:9
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

After the big Super Tuesday results surprisingly showing Joe Biden with a delegate lead over Bernie Sanders, two of the, at the time, remaining five candidates dropped out: Michael Bloomberg, who dropped out soon after winning American Samoa (and spending the equivalent of 76% of the territory’s GDP in ads) and more recently, Elizabeth Warren, who dropped out the day the previous article came out.
 
Unsurprisingly, a CNN panel pondered if the reason Warren performed so poorly (as well as the other women who were in the race) is because of blatant sexism, very conveniently leaving out the part that this is entirely a Democrat process and the vast majority of people voting in the Democrat primaries are Democrats.
 
Don Lemon, the dumbest and most racist man on television, began by saying: “I want to bring it now to the women who are here to talk about that. You have these women, these very strong, very powerful, very smart women in this race. You had Hillary Clinton, who is defeated despite winning the popular vote. You have Elizabeth Warren who didn’t do well, Amy Klobuchar who has dropped out of this race. You had this very diverse Democratic Party and then you have the women, you have all the white guys who have the delegates. What’s going on here?”
 
The Daily Beast’s Jackie Kucinich said that Klobuchar lost because she was lacking in funds, but then said this for Warren: “If just the fact that this ground game did not turn out votes for her, did not get people to the polls for Elizabeth Warren is really – there’s really a lot of digging as to why that didn’t happen, whether it’s sexism, whether it’s the fact someone did just change their mind. I heard women when I was in Iowa tell me ‘we’re Warren fans,’ we’re worried that people – they liked Warren, they heard her speak. They went to the polls and then they were worried that a woman couldn’t beat Donald Trump.”
 
If they really were worried that a woman couldn’t beat Trump, doesn’t that speak more about DEMOCRATS’ sexism than anything else? This isn’t about the entire country. In 2016, Hillary lost because she was unlikeable, was a terrible candidate and ultimately lost the electoral vote, with the vast majority of the country voting in favor of Trump over her. Elizabeth Warren was Hillary if she sounded like the most annoying librarian in the world. Elizabeth Warren lied through her teeth and stabbed “her friend” Bernie Sanders in the back with a tomahawk by saying he said things that she had no proof he said. Elizabeth Warren practically stole every policy idea from Bernie, from the GND to Medicare-for-All, with just a few details changed.
 
But by all means, claim that it was sexism that destroyed Warren, because it falls entirely on the Democrat Party and its socialist base.
 
Karen Finney, who was also on the panel and was a spokesperson for the Hillary campaign in 2016, said: “When it comes to executive office, our country is still very uncomfortable with women in power, and that’s part of why women have to over credential again and again. So in ‘16, we said, she would be – Hillary Clinton would have been the most qualified, right? You’ve heard – and you also have heard both Klobuchar and Warren and certainly Kamala when she was still talking about their electability and remember that for women what goes into electability is ‘do I think she – I like her?’ We don’t care if we like male candidates or not. Men come into a race with the expectation that they’re qualified. Women have to prove themselves…”
 
What a load of crap. First, as I have said time and again here, this is not a matter of the entire country, but of the DEMOCRATS being sexist, if that’s the angle you’re going for. It’s not that Americans aren’t comfortable with a female president, because that’s not the case whatsoever. I’d be more than happy to vote for a female conservative Republican to be President of the United States. But funny enough, a female conservative Republican is not someone Leftists would ever want to vote for because she’d be a “traitor” to her gender, as though women belong to the Democrat Party (much like black people and Latinos are supposed to belong to the Democrat Party, a belief very much in line with the Party’s pro-slavery history).
 
Second, let’s look at all the people that have, at one point or another, been a Democrat candidate this primary cycle. We have Joe Biden, who is still in and in the lead, Bernie Sanders, who is also still in, and Tulsi Gabbard, who is also still in but the Democrats think she’s too “right-wing” despite how utterly laughable that is (and let’s not forget she’s also a woman, and a woman of color, at that, and yet, the sexist and racist Democrats don’t want her).
 
The people who withdrew after the Iowa caucuses include: Elizabeth Warren, the aforementioned woman who apparently can’t get a fair shake; Michael Bloomberg, the guy practically no one liked; Amy Klobuchar, Mayor Pete, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, Michael Bennet and Andrew Yang. Among these people, one of them is black, another one is Asian, and another one is gay. Surely, with the line of thinking the CNN panel is using, Democrat voters are also racist and homophobic, as well as sexist for Warren and Klobuchar dropping out!
 
The people who withdrew before Iowa include: John Delaney, Cory Booker, Marianne Williamson, Julian Castro, Steve Bullock and Joe Sestak. We find two men of color, two women and one of those women is a woman of color.
 
Finally, the people who withdrew before appearing on any primary ballots include: Wayne Messam, Beto O’Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, Seth Moulton, Jay Inslee, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Mike Gravel, Eric Swalwell and Richard Ojeda. Out of all these people, only two are people of color and two are women. The rest are all white men (with one pretending he is Latino with his name).
 
The reason for me bringing this up is that there are PLENTY of men who voters did not want or support and did not think would be a good candidate to run against Trump. Elizabeth Warren made it to the final four and there is still a woman in this race but these people don’t want to cover her whatsoever. The idea that women have to over-credential themselves and sell themselves more than men do is idiotic. And, even if that really were to be the case here, and women do really have to over-credential themselves, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS! So if there is unfairness and sexism and bigotry here, it’s THE DEMOCRATS that are showing it, not the country as a whole.
 
For all of the minority candidates who dropped out, we had story after story asking if people were racist because those candidates failed in their effort to be the Party’s nominee. But each and every time, the question was poised as though it was THE ENTIRE COUNTRY’S FAULT THAT SUCH PEOPLE FAILED IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PRIMARIES!
 
Now, I’m not going to defend the Democrat base whatsoever because they are a bunch of communist loons. However, if the media is going to try and excuse these candidates’ pathetic efforts at being the party’s nominee by saying that it was racism and sexism’s fault, I am not going to let them get away with pinning the blame on the entirety of the country.
 
Like I pointed out, Tulsi is still in and she checks the “person of color” and “woman” boxes, and yet, they refuse to talk about her and cover her. Now, it’s down to two old white men, the demographic Democrats are supposed to hate, because of no one’s racism and sexism but the Democrats’, if that’s what you want to blame this on.
 
In any case, Finney then also went on to say that the electorate didn’t like that Warren was too harsh on Bloomberg, and Patty Solis Doyle, chief of staff for Joe Biden when he was Obama’s running mate, said: “I have to say this whole dynamic really upsets me. The fact that we’re even still talking about, ‘well, she can’t go too far, she can’t hit too hard.’ You know, in 2018, more women than ever before in our history ran for public office. More women than ever won public office. Women are going to be pivotal in this election. We started this presidential election with six women running, more than ever before in an election cycle. We’re down to two, and it really upsets me that someone like Elizabeth Warren, who was stellar on the debate stage, had a great organization, smart, tough, had resources, somehow just seemed to – has been like shoved aside and we don’t know why.”
 
I find that argument rather interesting, as women make up a decent portion of the Democrat Party and are the majority in this country at roughly 51% of the population. If Warren performed so poorly (even in her own state) then that means women were not particularly supportive of her. Maybe a good amount of them were, but considering how many women there are in general, if Bernie and Joe did better than her, wouldn’t one find more fault in the women who didn’t vote for Warren?
 
Doyle was acting as though Warren was THE candidate for women, and she may have tried to promote herself as that, but that clearly didn’t work and plenty of women didn’t go for her. Does that make those women sexist?
 
But to reiterate my overall point, I find it hilarious that these fake news people would try and pin this on “systemic sexism and racism” in the country when it is THE DEMOCRATS’ primaries that displayed people not voting for minorities or women. If these people really want to talk about voters being racist or sexist or whatever, they have to talk about the fact that these are DEMOCRAT voters, not all Americans.
 
Obviously, they aren’t going to do that. They never believe Democrats can be racist or sexist, even though that’s where we tend to find such bigotry. But even when they try and pin this on voters in general, avoiding talking about Democrats, they can’t help but invite people like me to call out their b.s. If “systemic racism and sexism” are what brought down the minority and female candidates, it’s all to be found exclusively on the Democrat side of things.
 
Romans 2:3
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

A series of events have occurred during and immediately following the results of this week’s Super Tuesday primary delegate race. For one, Mini Mike dropped out of the race after spending roughly $12 million per delegate (he got 53) and decided to join Amy Klobuchar, Mayor Pete and Beto O’Rourke in endorsing Joe Biden, the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the Democrats, as he is their only hope of beating Darth Bern.
 
With that, one of the biggest stories coming out of Super Tuesday is that Joe Biden is seemingly back in the race, even when he can’t figure out where he is half the time, can’t remember who our Creator is, and pulls the male version of Ilhan Omar, confusing his wife for his sister and vice versa. Despite the multiple months, caucuses and debates where it seemed Joe was completely dead in the water, he has regained his standing as the frontrunner, currently holding a lead over Bernie in delegate count.
 
While that is a worthwhile story for “The Comeback Grandpa”, there is another story that few are covering: President Trump’s impressive turnout despite his status as an incumbent president.
 
President Trump has primary challengers, though none of them are really worth discussing, but the incumbent usually is expected to outright win the primaries for their party. No incumbent has ever lost their party’s nomination (though there were some fairly close calls like Taft vs. Roosevelt and H.W. Bush vs. Buchanan) so it was fully expected for President Trump to win the primaries for the GOP. However, as an incumbent president, the turnout is particularly impressive, as incumbents usually don’t have as many people turning out to vote in the primaries.
 
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted the following, as the Super Tuesday results came in for the GOP: “We are seeing proof of the huge enthusiasm for Donald Trump in several states: In NC, POTUS has already blown past the # of votes he got in 2016. In OK, POTUS is on pace to receive 4 TIMES the # of votes of the last two incumbent presidents.”
 
“In AR, POTUS is on pace to receive DOUBLE the # of votes of the last two incumbent presidents. In MN, with just two-thirds of the vote in, POTUS has already received nearly 4 TIMES the # of votes as he did in the 2016 caucus. #WINNING.”
 
“MORE: Essex County, VT went for Obama in ’08 and ’12, but swung for Donald Trump in ’16 (aka “a Pivot County”). POTUS just received more votes there than all the Democrat primary candidates got in 2008. Update on NC: POTUS has received 150% MORE votes than he did in ’16!”
 
Chief of Staff for the GOP Richard Walters tweeted: “With 100% reporting in OK, Donald Trump has received over 270,000 votes. The President has not only surpassed his own vote total of 130,267 votes in 2016, he has over quadrupled the vote totals received by President Obama in 2012 (59,577) and President Bush in 2004 (64,389).”
 
What’s more, in North Carolina, with 95% reporting in, President Trump won the state with 93.5% of the vote, which far blows out of the water previous presidents. In 2012, Obama received 79% of the vote in that state. In 1996, Clinton received 81%. In 1988, Bush received just 45% and in 1980, Reagan received 68%.
 
Comparing Trump to Obama in 2012, we find the following figures:

• NH: 129,696 votes (Trump) / 49,080 votes (Obama)
• OK: 273,562 / 64,389
• MA: 224,752 / 127,909
• TN: 339,638 / 80,705
• VT: 34,000 / 40,247
• AL: 708,883 / 241,167
• TX: 1,883,799 / 520,410
• NC: 747,038 / 766,077
  
  

President Trump, in many states, far outdoes Barack Obama in 2012. And comparing Trump to the current Democrats in the race, we also find some interesting things.
 
Let’s begin with New Hampshire, since Iowa’s Democrat vote count is very weird, as they do not show the actual number of votes for each candidate but the number of “State Delegate Equivalent” votes, which shows up as a very small number. For example, Mayor Pete won the primary with 563 votes, with Bernie garnering 562 votes, but the GOP’s primary didn’t have this confusing vote count and shows Trump got over 30,000 votes, so I won’t compare the two parties’ vote count for Iowa. In NH, Bernie won the state with 76,324 votes, Mayor Pete received 72,457, Amy Klobuchar got 58,796, and Elizabeth Warren got 27,387.
 
President Trump got 129,696, as previously stated. That is far more than what Obama got in 2012 (like I said earlier) and by far defeats Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Democrats. Even if you put the top two winners together, they get less than 20,000 more votes than Donald Trump.
 
Let’s now look at California. The communist-run state was won by Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday, with him garnering 992,304 votes. Joe Biden came in second with 733,086. Bloomberg got 424,670 votes and Fauxcahontas got 357,306.
 
Pretty good, right? Well, President Trump got 1,441,031. Obviously, he got far less votes than all the Democrats put together, but there is a good reason I’m talking about this. Far-Left socialists are currently ticked off at Elizabeth Warren for staying in this race, taking votes away from Bernie, and allowing the “moderate” Democrat Establishment to rally around Joe. However, even if Warren wasn’t in this race, and assuming 100% of the votes that went to her would go to Bernie instead, that’s still not enough to defeat Donald Trump.
 
Putting the “two” socialists in this race together in California (Bernie and Warren), they amassed 1,349,610 votes. That’s still almost 100,000 votes shy of Donald Trump. Now, I’m not saying that California is all that likely to go to President Trump in 2020, but it is fairly interesting that the “two” socialists here still got less votes together than Trump in total.
 
What’s more, Matt Vespa from TownHall.com asks the fairly rhetorical question: “Did Democrats Just Create a Path for Trump to Take California?” That is the title of his article and the reason he speculates this is because of a bill that recently went into effect that will likely kill millions of jobs in the state, as it disallows businesses contracting people without counting them as full-on employees (something that would absolutely kill ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, which rely on contracting drivers as opposed to hiring them to a position). Vespa also quotes a writer at Red State who said the following:
 
“I’m about to make a purely anecdotal statement, so take it for what it’s worth but… I’ve never seen so many Californians willing and eager to cross the aisle to vote Republican as I have in the last two months… Do they want to vote for the California GOP? No. Do they want to vote for Trump? No. That being said, more than anything they want to be heard and since the California Democrats are willfully ignoring their voices, many feel a GOP vote will be the only way to make an impact. They’ll go back to voting for the party they love and are loyal to, but they’re for sure not going back to it if they don’t have jobs or are forced to move out of state because of AB5 (the aforementioned job-killing bill).”
 
“The stakes are real and critical and I’ve never seen so many people throwing aside political divisions for a unified cause. We vote with our wallets and Newsom and Gonzalez (the author of AB5) have taken the last dollars out of our wallets and then thumbed their noses at us for complaining about it.”
 
The Red State writer, Kira Davis, also says that Trump can benefit a lot by simply pointing out the atrocious bill and the impact it’s having on Californians and the state’s economy.
 
The fact that Trump got more votes than the “two” socialist candidates still in the race (by Super Tuesday, that is) is also significant. Again, I don’t think California will go to Trump and it’s largely a pipe dream that it will, but it’s worth pointing this out: even in California, plenty of people like Trump.
 
In any case, let’s now look at Alabama, where Trump won BIG. On the Democrat side, Biden won 286,630 votes, Sanders got 75,326, Bloomberg got 52,844 and Warren got 26,125. As previously stated, President Trump won 708,883 votes, far exceeding the vote count of all other Democrats (though it’s Alabama, so that’s to be expected).
 
In Arkansas, Biden got 92,584 votes, Sanders got 51,117, Bloomberg got 38,212 and Warren got 22,860. President Trump got 237,826 by comparison.
 
In Texas, Biden got 661,231 votes, Bernie got 591,952, Bloomberg got 289,340 and Warren got 227,422. President Trump got 1,883,799. As with Alabama, it’s rather expected for Trump to win big in Texas, but again, this is a massive number, particularly when comparing it to Obama.
 
What we find in all but two states (Massachusetts and Vermont) is that Trump, despite him being an incumbent and running basically unopposed (as the other GOP primary opponents are basically nobodies), is drawing in massive turnout for himself in what are essentially guaranteed races. There is just about zero chance for any GOP primary challenger to defeat Trump in any of these states, and yet, the President receives far bigger turnouts in many of these places than the current Democrat candidates and his predecessors.
 
This is the big story coming out of Super Tuesday that practically no one will cover: Trump’s base keeps growing and growing. His re-election, while not an absolute guarantee, is looking more and more likely as time goes on and as people keep dropping out.
 
The only people left in the Democrat race are two white men who are, at minimum, 77 years of age, with one of them believing the Soviet Union was good and that breadlines were a good thing for people, and the other believing his wife is his sister and that Super Tuesday was Super Thursday (among a slew of other gaffes that are equal parts funny and sad). Elizabeth Warren is basically a non-factor (UPDATE: She's out) and Bloomberg has already dropped out after wasting half a billion dollars annoying us in ads and winning less than 60 total delegates.
 
The fact that Biden might be the nominee will also annoy the heck out of Bernie supporters who might actually burn Milwaukee to the ground and essentially gift Trump with his second term come November, be it by directly voting for him (or simply against the Democrat establishment) or just not voting at all, leaving Joe with less voters.
 
The Democrats don’t stand a chance in 2020, do they? (Note that this is not an invitation to not go out to vote on November 3rd, 2020. Complacency on the part of an overly cocky Trump base would sink him, so make sure to go out to vote so that the Left truly doesn’t have any chance to win at all).
 
Luke 10:19
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For about four years now, we have heard virtually every major and minor fake news publication make the claim that Donald Trump was “like Hitler” or “worse than Hitler”, which serves nothing more than to criminally minimize the dreadful impact Hitler had on tens of millions of people. In that time, we have also heard some others on the Left claim that Trump was like Stalin or Mao Zedong. Well, one writer for The Atlantic tried to compare Trump to Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.
 
Allow me to explain just why it is absolutely ABSURD to claim that Trump is in any way, shape, manner or form akin to any of these communist dictators of the past and the present.
 
Let’s first begin with The Atlantic’s article. Anne Applebaum writes this article and I have to say, apart from the obvious attempt at painting Trump like a communist dictator, it is actually a pretty good article, as it describes the process Chavez underwent to become Venezuela’s dictator, the power that he consolidated for himself, and even attacks Venezuela as being the “endgame” for ideological Marxism.
 
I know, I found that strange as well. Apparently, this woman is not a fan of ideological Marxism and recognizes that Venezuela is its natural result, and yet, hates Trump and believes Trump to be like Chavez. Ridiculous, if you ask me. But let me share some excerpts from the article.
 
After attacking Trump for inviting the legitimate president of Venezuela, Juan Guaido, to his State of the Union address and claiming he was essentially just being used a prop by the POTUS (even going so far as to claim Trump has never advocated for the liberty of other people before that point), she writes:
 
“Regardless of what actually happens there, Venezuela – especially when it was run by Maduro’s predecessor, the late Hugo Chavez – has long been a symbolic cause for the Marxist left as well. More than a decade ago, Hans Modrow, one of the last East German Communist Party leaders and now an elder statesman of the far-left Die Linke party, told me that Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian socialism’ represented his greatest hope: that Marxist ideas – which had driven East Germany into bankruptcy – might succeed, finally, in Latin America.”
 
“Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left leader of the British Labour Party, was photographed with Chavez and has described his regime in Venezuela as ‘an inspiration to all of us fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics.’ Chavez’s rhetoric also helped inspire the Spanish Marxist Pablo Iglesias to create Podemos, Spain’s far-left party. Iglesias has long been suspected of taking Venezuelan money, though he denies it. Even now, the idea of Venezuela inspires defensiveness and anger wherever dedicated Marxists still gather, whether they are Code Pink activists vowing to ‘protect’ the Venezuelan embassy in Washington from the Venezuelan opposition or French Marxists who refuse to call Maduro a dictator.”
 
“And yet – Venezuela is not an idea. It is a real place, full of real people who are undergoing an unprecedented and in some ways very eerie crisis. If it symbolizes anything at all, it is the distorting power of symbols. In reality, the country offers no comfort for youthful Marxists or self-styled anti-imperialists – or for fans of Donald Trump.”
 
Why would it offer comfort for fans of Trump? ALL OF US ARE LITERALLY AGAINST EVERYTHING VENEZUELA HAS BECOME! We are against the socialist system that has driven it to this point. We are against the socialist system BERNIE SANDERS wishes to impose on us because we recognize IT’S THE EXACT SAME FREAKING ONE!
 
As the writer of this piece points out, Chavez consolidated power through changing the rules of elections, packing the courts and altering the electoral system so that no one has any chance at beating him. Does that more closely describe the desires of Trump OR THE DEMOCRATS WHO CRY “RUSSIA, RUSSIA” AND WANT TO ELIMINATE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND MAKE D.C. A NEW STATE WITH SO MANY DELEGATES THAT IT OVERRIDES VIRTUALLY EVERYONE ELSE!? DEMOCRATS want to do exactly this. THEY are the ones that want to change the rules of elections, eliminating the electoral college, and pack the courts so that everything they do becomes legitimized by these courts.
 
The piece also points out the health crisis going on in Venezuela, particularly with food and water shortages. Who exactly wants to socialize medicine in the States, much like Chavez did in Venezuela, Trump or the Democrats?
 
The idea that Donald Trump is in any way like Chavez is so ignorant, it hurts. The piece even points out that “Venezuela is the endgame of ideological Marxism”, as I mentioned earlier, and still believes TRUMP to be more like the dictators following this ideology than anyone else in American politics. It’s absolutely LUDICROUS.
 
Every dictator that they say Trump is like, from Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, to Mussolini, to Chavez, to Maduro, was/is from the FAR-LEFT, COMMUNIST SIDE OF THE POLITICAL AISLE.
 
Each of these dictators increased the size of the government, nationalizing entire industries. For crying out loud, Volkswagen was created as a STATE-OWNED COMPANY BY THE NAZIS! Each of these socialist/communist dictatorships nationalized healthcare, insurance, banks, EVERYTHING!
 
The bread lines that people in the Soviet Union had to stand in, or people in Venezuela currently have to stand in, have been PRAISED by Bernie Sanders! Just last week, I wrote an entire article talking about how much of a communist Bernie Sanders is, espousing the exact same ideologies that these communist dictators espouse/espoused, some of which Bernie has PRAISED like Fidel Castro! Don’t even remotely try and tell me that TRUMP has anything in common with these communists because that is a take pretty much NO ONE on either side of the aisle will agree with.
 
Communists hate Trump because he isn’t a communist. Capitalists love Trump for the exact same reason. Anyone arguing Trump is anything like these fascist thugs is a liar. Matter of fact, the most Applebaum can claim Trump has in common with Chavez (things that are still ridiculous) are the claims of “assault on democracy, courts, and the press.”
 
Like I said, the Democrats are the ones trying to change the rules of our electoral system and packing our courts. As far as the press goes, keep in mind that they make no effort to be unbiased or even show they are unbiased. They falsely claim to be objective but show none of it and work to directly undermine Trump. The press in Venezuela, China, the USSR, Nazi Germany and any other socialist nation works FOR the government and the leader of those nations. You will never see the press be critical of the government because THEY WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
 
The leaders of communist nations CONTROL the media. The media in this country works at the behest of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, something that’s long been the case since before Trump became POTUS. I mean, they ran with everything John Kerry and Obama were telling them about the Iran nuke deal, and still do to this day to try and defend Obama’s sorry and diminishing legacy. For those eight years, much of the media acted like the media in these dictatorships because if they went against the president, there would be negative consequences.
 
One simply cannot excoriate the far-left Marxist ideology and somehow tie it to Donald Trump. There is no basis for such an action and, again, no one on either side of the aisle would agree with this sentiment.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Calling on the spirit of German and Soviet socialists of days gone by, supporters of Bernie Sanders set out to harass and intimidate Democrat congressional candidate Betsy Dirksen Londrigan by trying to trap her in her car, making demands that she debate her far-left, socialist primary opponent Stefanie Smith.
 
A video of the incident captured the moment, with one Bernie Bro shouting “Will you support Medicare for All?” and later “block her in” as well as “get by her window.”
 
Of course, for sane people, this is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and harass a candidate these people don’t like, but unsurprisingly, Stefanie Smith, the aforementioned socialist primary candidate, approved of this brown-shirt style intimidation attempt by the Bernie Bros.
 
“It was a non-violent protest. [I]f Betsy can’t handle a few people demanding a conversation about the life or death issues facing many of [us] in this district, she should quit now because she will not be able to handle Davis and Trump.”
 
In a Facebook video, Smith expressed her appreciation for the intimidation of Londrigan: “I can’t tell you how much it meant to me when I watched the video of what happened. Apparently, people are expecting me to make a statement. They’re absolutely the most manipulative, childish, privileged, terrible people I’ve met in my life (unsure who she is referring to here, but I doubt it’s her little brown-shirt comrades),” she added that “campaigning has been a nightmare of alienation, hostility, humiliation, gaslighting, and so much abuse.”
 
You mean like the kind of abuse your opponent got from your little commie gremlins? I don’t even find it surprising in the least bit that she supports this. She herself is a socialist and socialists love this kind of behavior from their minions. They embrace and adore violence, targeted political harassment and intimidation against political opponents. Of course, she tries to downplay it, saying it was just as “non-violent protest” when it was clearly so much more than that.
 
Not that this is even remotely a first for the Bernie Bros. Need I remind you of the Bernie Sanders supporter who specifically tried to hunt down and murder Republicans during a Congressional baseball game? Or when a Bernie Bro tried to destroy and blow up ICE vehicles? Even fairly recently, at a Bernie rally, two Bernie Bros got into a scuffle because a black Bernie Bro was wearing a shirt that said “Black Guns Matter”, which a white Bernie Bro, ironically, found to be racist, resulting in the two shoving and attacking each other briefly.
 
Violence, hatred, insanity, these are a few of the many words that depict these terrible, horrible people. Obviously, not every person that supports Bernie engages in this sort of activity, but his supporters are pretty much the only people that do this on a regular basis. And he doesn’t even mind one bit. He’s not going to outright praise and encourage people to do this but people like Maxine Waters will encourage this behavior and excuse it when it happens because she is just as terrible a human being as the rest of them are.
 
Bear in mind that we are talking about a DEMOCRAT candidate being harassed here. I don’t know much about Betsy Londrigan apart from what I can tell from reading her campaign page. It says that Londrigan is running “because everything is at stake – access to quality and affordable healthcare, an economy that prioritizes the middle class, and a Congress that isn’t controlled by special interests.” Running as a Democrat, it’s rather clear that she does not believe the economy is good for middle-class Americans (even though it is) and believes in passing legislation to “make healthcare affordable” as though we didn’t have in place a terrible system called the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, that was supposed to do that but clearly has failed.
 
She is your typical Leftist running in this day and age, which is why I find it so interesting that Bernie Bros would choose to target her and harass her like this. She even said that she’d be willing to support Smith if she won the candidacy, even though Smith did not reciprocate. She is not an outright enemy to the Commie Brigade, she just isn’t these people’s favored candidate. And yet, they choose to harass her like this. Says plenty about the character of these people, who claim to be in the moral right despite all the evidence against that.
 
It also goes to show they are willing to destroy anyone if it means getting their way. If a Democrat who simply is in the way of their favored candidate is bound to receive this kind of harassment, they will lust for the blood of someone who is actually a political enemy.
 
A spokeswoman for the incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL), the man Smith and Londrigan are running against, denounced the protest against the Democrat candidate: “In 2017, a Bernie supporter shot at Congressman Davis and other Republicans practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game. Since then, Congressman Davis has spoken out against this kind of violence and the harassment others have experienced, saying it shouldn’t happen to anyone. He wishes more people would speak out against this kind of harassment from Bernie supporters.”
 
No one who is a Bernie supporter will speak out against this because this serves in the interests of Che Sanders. These people, I will repeat, are communists. Communists don’t care for other people. If someone is in their way, they are to be eliminated in whatever manner possible. Joseph Stalin’s own son was captured by the Nazis when they invaded the USSR (Stalin’s son was a soldier for the Red Army) and he refused to make an exchange with them to get him back. He did not like his son at all, thought of him as nothing but a failure, even ridiculing him when he attempted suicide by remarking that he couldn’t even kill himself properly, and believed his son surrendered himself to the enemy rather than having been captured, considering him an enemy of the state.
 
Stalin did not see any value in his own son and found more value in the prisoners the Soviets had captured, namely a high-ranking Nazi officer and even Hitler’s nephew, than in his own son. This is what communists do. Anyone who is not worth something to their leaders is expendable, utterly worthless, and their life holds no meaning or value. They do not care for the lives of others, not believing that even their own lives have value unless they serve their human masters or the State (but I repeat myself).
 
Again, it’s not surprising that these commies would be willing to harass someone who is not even ideologically different from them. She is just in the way of their communist candidate. That’s all it takes for her life to be worth nothing. For all the cries about “free speech hurts my feelings”, they sure don’t mind possibly traumatizing someone at best if it means getting their way. And, like Smith, they will call it a “non-violent protest”.
 
Right, because such protests include harassing someone, trapping them in their car and making them fear for their lives and general well-being. Apparently, a “non-violent protest” can include targeted harassment and intimidation, so long as there isn’t physical damage to person or property.
 
These people are simultaneously unbelievable and perfectly predictable. I don’t know how they manage to do that.
 
Romans 2:9-11
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Before getting to the major points of this article, I would like to say that the title, I would hope, comes across as sarcastic, because some people may not quite get it in this day and age. I am not even a little bit surprised that The Boston Globe, long the biggest pushers for the hoax that Elizabeth Warren was Native American, ended up endorsing Elizabeth Warren. No one, I believe, should be surprised by this. But there is reason for me to talk about this, despite how obvious a result this was.
 
It’s not simply the actual endorsement that I want to cover, but the reasons The Boston Globe gives for endorsing her.
 
The Boston Globe begins by saying that they believe any of the Democrat candidates would be a better alternative to Donald Trump (yes, they even include Bloomberg, the closet communist, and Bernie Sanders, the out-of-the-closet communist), and gives brief “reasons” as to why. With Mayor Pete, they say he is “whip-smart and brings a war-zone veteran’s credibility to military matters.” Mayor Pete was an intel analyst targeting al-Qaeda’s finances. Granted, he was in some of the more dangerous areas to look for this intel, according to military documents acquired by The Hill (that are heavily redacted), but he was not engaged in combat while in the military (this isn’t meant to diminish the work that he did in serving this country, but it is meant to point out that he does not have “war-zone veteran” credibility).
 
They also say of Mayor Pete “his calmness under pressure creates a welcome contrast to a president who tweets insults at world leaders.” The world leaders we are talking about here are Kim Jong-un and the Ayatollah Khamenei, for the most part, who are both great enemies of the U.S., with Little Kim having essentially been tamed after finding out Trump is not the softy that Obama was and with the Ayatollah Khamenei finding out the same after his second-in-command was blown into pieces. He criticizes leaders from “allied” countries when they act against the interests of the United States because he wishes to advance the U.S., not help political enemies.
 
Of Joe Biden, they comment on his legislative “achievements”, such as the “Violence Against Women Act”, which criminalized violence against women. Wait, you’re telling me it was already illegal to be violent towards women and the bill practically achieved nothing? Huh. Of Bloomberg, they comment on his drive to enact gun control policies and “combat” climate change. Of Klobuchar, they praise her ability to “broker bipartisan deals” in a polarized Congress. And Bernie, they just like the fact that he “fights” inequality. Never mind the fact that he and I have an inequality in the number of houses we each own. Never mind that he has millions of dollars while I have substantially less.
 
But regardless of their praise of the other candidates (which really just shows they’re willing to sidle up to whomever wins the nomination), they, of course, say they believe Warren is best suited to take on and beat Trump, which is utterly laughable.
 
They say she wants to “defend the principles of democracy” despite the fact we are a Republic and, as such, we are not ruled by a mob that wishes to decide what happens in other states without the consent of people living in those states. She will “bring fairness to an economy that is excluding too many Americans”, despite the fact that we are experiencing record-low unemployment rates across the board and wages are going up, particularly for low-wage Americans, who are seeing wage growth at far higher rates than middle- and high-wage Americans. She would “fight the corruption and corporate influence that distort our politics”, despite the fact that she takes money from Planned Parenthood and other Leftist lobby groups.
 
Later on, The Boston Globe writes: “Fearless and brilliant on her feet, Warren has the greatest potential among the candidates to lay bare Trump’s weaknesses on a debate stage. The Senator gets the most mileage when she brings her fight not to caricatures of billionaires in wine caves but to the real people in the room with her – whether businessmen or bureaucrats – who have failed to fulfill the responsibilities of public service or whose plans for the country are half-baked or ill-conceived.” She literally stole her Medicare-for-All plan from Bernie and virtually everything else from him as well. If his plans are half-baked or ill-conceived, so are hers.
 
Warren also makes a priority to go after predatory lenders, despite the fact that government intrusion into the college system have created such predatory lenders in the first place. With college getting more and more expensive, high school graduates’ only options are to either go into massive amounts of debt or not go to college at all, if they cannot receive a scholarship (and scholarships only go so far). Warren would just put more government into a system that has far too much in it already, thus making things even worse.
 
The funny thing is that, at one point, the Boston Globe criticizes Sanders for adhering to his ideology and agenda despite facts and often evades precise figures. WARREN DOES THE EXACT SAME THING BECAUSE SHE OFTEN COPIES SANDERS! Despite how utterly ineffective, disastrous and not to mention unaffordable Medicare-for-All is, she still wishes to pursue it. She still wants a Green New Deal. It doesn’t matter if she wants to “tweak” them a little to make them a bit more “affordable”, because there is no making it affordable! We can hardly afford the government garbage we have today, given our ever-rising national debt.
 
And she wants to increase that debt exponentially?! Not to mention this is not exclusive to Warren either.
 
They say that she would tackle the NRA and fossil fuel industries for “thwarting legislative efforts” regarding gun control and climate change, the latter of which they falsely claim is a major priority for Americans. I’ve recently written an article talking about precisely this; about how a poll from Pew Research Center (so not exactly a right-wing surveyor) found “dealing with climate change” to be near the bottom in a list of priorities for Americans.
 
Elizabeth Warren would be no better a president than Sanders or any other Democrat, because she would be just as disastrous for this country as the rest of them. But as I stated previously, I’m not surprised that The Boston Globe would endorse her. For years, they had been pushing the hoax that Warren was Native American, even publishing her DNA results and claiming that she was Native American when the results showed she was less Native American than your average white person AT BEST, being 1/32nd Native American, and being FAR less Native than your average white person at 1/1024th Native American.
 
And let’s not forget that the DNA analysis was awfully flawed, extrapolating Native American DNA from LATIN AMERICANS as opposed to actual Native Americans, so the results could be even worse.
 
Not surprising in the least that a fake news publication would endorse their favorite fake Indian. And the reasons as to why are laughable at best.
 
Proverbs 29:12
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.