Social media was abuzz earlier this week shortly following the seventh Democrat debate and the last one before the Iowa caucuses were set to begin due to how CNN treated Crazy Bernie with some of the questions asked.
There was one particular moment during the Democrat debates that had Bernie supporters actually agreeing with Trump supporters that CNN is garbage. But this moment likely was set up from the start of the week.
You see, back on Monday, CNN reported that Sen. Bernie Sanders told Sen. Elizabeth Warren during a private 2018 dinner where it was just the two of them that he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency. CNN’s source? Their usual b.s. of “anonymous sources”.
Of course, Bernie denied such an accusation and again did so during the debate when he was asked if he did actually say that to Elizabeth Warren:
“CNN reported yesterday and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe a woman could win the presidential election. Why did you say that?” asked debate moderator Abby Phillips.
“Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody [who] knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren. There was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what… [I] stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I… did run afterwards. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?”
I do not like Bernie whatsoever and thoroughly believe that all of his ideas would destroy this country almost immediately. Funny enough, in a rare moment of journalistic integrity (at least, somewhat), a couple of chyrons from CNN during the debate read: “Sanders’ proposals would double federal spending over a decade; how will he avoid bankrupting the country?” and “Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them and the country?” These are the types of questions journalists NEVER are supposed to ask Democrats, but they did for Bernie (although they didn’t ask the same of Warren, who is pretty well-known for stealing Bernie’s terrible ideas).
However, these chyrons, as well as another one that read: “Warren supports a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada; why is Sanders’ opposition to it wrong?”, lead us to believe that the fix is in for Bernie and that CNN is sidling up to Warren. But none of these compare to the actual moment during the debate when they blatantly took Warren’s side.
Immediately following Bernie’s answer, Abby Phillips said: “So Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Bernie, of course, said: “that is correct.”
But then, Phillips turned to Warren and asked: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you that a woman could not win the election?”
The question wasn’t “Did Bernie tell you what you said he told you?” It wasn’t “Do you have any proof that he said what you accuse him of saying?” They just assumed that Bernie was lying and that the burden of proof fell on Bernie, not Warren, which is, of course, ridiculous as one cannot prove something didn’t happen, only that it did. One cannot outright prove that Bernie didn’t say something, only that he did, and the burden of proof falls on Warren.
Of course, this led to many people both on the Left (at least those who support Bernie) and the Right to call out CNN for their blatant bias.
Andrew Egger tweeted: “It’s WILD that CNN didn’t ask Warren to positively state that Bernie told her ‘a woman can’t win,’ seconds after he positively denied that it happened. Just ‘what did you think when he said that to you?’ Absolute malpractice.”
Saagar Enjeti from The Hill tweeted: “Seriously it is outrageous that CNN would take Warren’s accusation as a statement of fact.”
Tim Carney from the Washington Examiner said: “Bernie was mistreated by CNN.”
Reason magazine senior editor Robby Soave said: “It was a very telling moment when Bernie said he didn’t say a woman couldn’t win and then in the very next moment, the moderator just asserted that he had.”
Of course, I have my own opinions regarding this. Bernie absolutely got mistreated by CNN there. He was accused of saying something, is being lied about it, smeared about it, and he is being indicted in the court of public opinion by at least Warren supporters and others in the media. Presumption of innocence is not being granted to him by some people. In other words, he received the Brett Kavanaugh treatment from CNN.
But then again, Brett Kavanaugh is also the reason I don’t particularly feel bad for Bernie. Sure, he was wronged by CNN, but he took Dr. Ford’s side entirely when it came to the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Back when Kavanaugh was being confirmed by the Senate, various senators got the chance to weigh in and give their two cents on it. This is what Bernie said:
“I listened to Dr. Ford, and I listened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe Dr. Ford. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court. If Judge Kavanaugh wants to clear his name on these very serious charges he should immediately demand a thorough FBI investigation. If not, the Senate should reject his nomination.”
Dr. Ford provided zero evidence and the witnesses that she named either did not actually witness anything, had no recollection of anything, or adamantly CONTRADICTED Ford’s testaments. There wasn’t a single shred of evidence that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her or any of the other women that the Democrats called up to accuse him and smear him. His reputation was forever ruined from that day and even now, people believe Dr. Ford and the other accusers, despite the total lack of evidence.
Bernie got a SMALL TASTE of that injustice. Warren didn’t accuse him of sexual assault. CNN and the other propaganda organizations aren’t running hit piece after hit piece smearing Bernie as a serial sexual offender. His political future (short as it might be) is not heavily threatened by these accusations of sexism. Yes, he was wronged by CNN for assuming he said something when there is no proof he did, but Bernie was on the same side as them just a little over a year ago.
He did not presume Kavanaugh’s innocence and believed the statements of an obviously trained Democrat operative who provided zero proof, only a seemingly sympathetic crying face and seemingly innocent manner of speech. That wench tried to ruin a man’s entire LIFE just because she perceived him to be a threat to Roe v. Wade and Bernie took her side wholeheartedly.
CNN absolutely sucks. They are garbage. The hashtag “CNNisTrash” was trending on Twitter following that moment and for good reason: it’s the truth. This “news” organization recently settled with a 17-year-old because they lied about him being a racist in an attempt to ruin the kid’s life just because he supports Trump. For the first two and a half years of Trump’s presidency, CNN ran story after story of nothing but lies and deception about Russian collusion, assuming Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary and reporting that as though it was truth.
CNN is a garbage propaganda organization with zero truth in anything they report. But I do not feel bad for Bernie at all. This is what happens when truth and justice is overtaken by political agendas. There wasn’t one bit of evidence to suggest Kavanaugh did what he did to any of the women who accused him of sexual assault. Not one could provide corroborating evidence or witnesses to back up their claims. And yet, for a few months, the media made sure to forever ruin an innocent man’s reputation and life, like they tried to do with Clarence Thomas, just because he was a political enemy. Bernie played a part, even if a small one, in presuming guilt rather than innocence despite all the evidence AGAINST the accusers’ testimonies.
Bernie got a small taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end when idiots say “believe all women”. There is no reason to believe someone who, for decades, lied about her heritage to get an advantage and constantly lies about virtually every aspect of her life, policies etc. There is no reason to believe this simply due to the lack of evidence that Bernie said what he is accused of having said. But there was also never a reason to believe any of the Kavanaugh accusers, but Bernie abandoned truth and reason for political points and convenience.
If you ask me, he got only a little bit of what he actually deserves. Still, I am amused at the fact that Democrats might be trying to screw Bernie again. Only makes Trump’s win all the easier come November.
“Affliction will slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Pop culture. Mainstream Media. Social Media. Politics. All of these things are dominated by the Left to one extent or another. All of these things feature Left-wing ideologies, ideas, policies, beliefs and objectives. All of these things make you believe that the loud voices you hear are the mainstream, popular and majority opinions. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Gallup recently ran a poll to find where Americans find themselves on the political spectrum and the results can be eye-opening for some, or perhaps, most people. According to Gallup, while there are more Americans who align themselves with the Democrat Party than Republican (47-42%, respectively), the number of conservatives in this country is far bigger than the number of liberals and that gap is growing.
Gallup surveyed nearly 30,000 people (so a massive sample size) and found that 37% of Americans view themselves as “conservative”. This number is up from the previous time this survey was taken (2018) when 35% identified as “conservative” so a two-point increase. But while the number of conservatives grew in 2019, the number of liberals SHRANK.
According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify themselves as “liberal” is just 24%, down from 26% the previous year. 35% of Americans identified as “moderate” though it’s possible that a decent number of them are conservatives who were too afraid to say they are conservative out of fear of scorn or persecution and one cannot really blame someone for this.
As I said, pop culture, the MSM, social media, etc. are all DOMINATED by Left-wing rhetoric and ideology. You hear the biggest names in Hollywood or in sports often lambasting the President or even the country itself. You watch the news and most of it is negative towards Trump and those who support him. You go on social media and you often see Left-wing babble trending on Twitter or conservatives being censored or conservative videos getting taken down or conservative comments being flagged as “hate speech”, etc.
The loud voices of the Left are so overwhelming and frequent that you can’t help but think they are in the majority. And THAT is the reason they are so loud. They don’t have the numbers. The vast majority of people do not agree with everything these self-righteous hypocrites have to say. The vast majority of people do not agree with them. But as they live in their own narcissistic bubble and believe they are the most important and intelligent people on Earth, they believe most people do agree with them and couldn’t possibly stand that most people do not, so they delude themselves.
Remember when Rose McGowan tweeted that “52% of us humbly apologize” for the drone strike that killed Soleimani? She sincerely believes that 52% of the country is Left-wing 24/7 and agrees with her and the Left on basically everything. She believes 52% of the country is with her on this, but according to The Hill, 47% of American voters supported the strike against Soleimani, while only 40% disapproved (sample size: 1,995 registered voters). Granted, not every American is a registered voter, but when it comes to election time, these are the people that matter the most.
The vast majority of people agreed with the Soleimani strike, even if Rose McGowan and Michael “Higher BMI than IQ points” Moore deeply apologize to the terror-supporting Iranians. This is because the vast majority of Americans DO NOT agree with these idiotic celebrities.
Now, when it comes to party lines, most people align roughly with what would be expected. Among Republicans, 73% identify as “conservative”, which ties the highest number in the last 25 years, while only 4% identify as “liberal”. 21% of Republicans also identify as “moderate”. For Democrats, 49% identify as liberal, 36% are “moderate” and 14% are “conservative”.
As far as Independents go, 45% identify as “moderate”, 30% are “conservative” and 21% are “liberal”.
41% of American men consider themselves “conservative”, 36% of men are “moderate” and 20% are “liberal”. 33% of women are “conservative”, 35% are “moderate” and 28% are “liberal”. If I had to guess at least one reason, even if not the biggest reason, for this disparity, I would guess that abortion would have to be a reason for it. Women are the ones who get pregnant after sex, so it stands to reason that there would be more liberal women than liberal men because liberal women do not want the responsibility of child-bearing and rearing. I’m not sure if this is the biggest reason for this disparity, but I think it’s at least one, fairly major, reason for it.
Looking at age, we find that those 18-29 tend to be more liberal than conservative (30-26% respectively), but not by all that much and the vast majority of them are moderate (40%). This makes a lot of sense to me. Plenty of young people naively support socialism and communism, so it stands to reason that more of them are more “liberal” than “conservative”, but the difference is not overwhelming. And it also makes sense that so many are “moderate” because younger people tend to try and find themselves and what they believe, not holding on to anything solid politically just yet, but discovering what they believe for themselves to be morally right (though morality is determined by God, but that’s an argument for another time).
Of course, I fall within this age range, being a Millennial, but I would consider myself to be solidly conservative (and I would hope all of my articles would reflect that). For people ages 30-49, 34% are “conservative” as opposed to 26% of “liberals”, with 37% being “moderate”. 50-64 age range, you find 42% “conservative”, 34% “moderate” and 21% “liberal”. 65+, you get 46% “conservative”, 29% “moderate” and 21% “liberal.”
This also makes sense, in my opinion. Winston Churchill is (perhaps falsely) attributed for saying: “If you aren’t a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative by 40, you have no brain.” We tend to be most liberal when we are young because our minds are not yet fully developed and we are more prone to act based on emotion rather than logic (which is why the Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16). Young people do not know the truths of the world, at least usually. They have to go out and discover them for themselves, which is why virtually no one takes the 17-year-old climate puppet seriously.
As one gets older, one would (hopefully) get wiser as well. If one obtains more knowledge as time goes on, one obtains more wisdom as well. We gain this through time and experience. Young people do not have the experience and wisdom that comes with age that older people do, so they tend to be a bit more liberal because being liberal means being more illogical (sorry to any liberal reading this, but the ideologies of socialism are a pipe-dream and not at all realistic or possible to achieve with zero negative consequence).
But moving on from age, we also find distinctions in levels of education. Those with a postgraduate degree are, to no one’s surprise, more liberal than conservative (36-26%, respectively) though an equal number of people to liberals are also “moderate”. Those who have graduated college find a shift, however, where 32% are “conservative”, 38% are “moderate” and 28% are “liberal”. Those with only “some college” education are 38% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 22% “liberal”. Those without any college education are 43% “conservative”, 33% “moderate” and 19% “liberal”.
I’ve said this countless times before and I’ll say it again: college is where logic goes to die. The effects of Marxism in college campuses are clear for all to see. This plays at least some role in the liberalism of young people, and a particularly big role in the socialist and communist romantization in young people’s minds. Despite the fact that communism is an ideology of death and destruction, it’s been romanticized by Marxist college professors seeking to mold young people’s minds the way that they want and create more and more Marxist puppets. How else can one come to find someone as economically illiterate as AOC having an economics degree?
The longer people subject themselves to college indoctrination, the more likely they are to come out the other side a mini-Lenin.
Regardless, next we find people with different incomes and something fairly surprising. Those who make $100,000 or more are 36% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 26% “liberal”. Income range from $40,000 to $100,000, you find 38% are “conservative”, 35% “moderate”, and 25% “liberal.” For those who make less than $40,000, you find 36% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 24% “liberal”.
This is interesting to me because of just how close together each of them is. The entire schtick of communism, at least as Marx put it, was all about class warfare and the “inequalities” of income between the proletariat and the bourgeoise. Of course, he was mostly talking about Germany and the U.K., not about the U.S., as it wasn’t a world superpower at the time, but still. For all the talks in communist circles about class warfare, the numbers seem to be roughly the same regardless of income. Actually, according to these numbers, you are more likely to be liberal if you make MORE money than less. This, I suppose, is where one would tend to find the term “limousine liberal” to make a lot of sense.
Regarding race, Non-Hispanic whites are 41% “conservative”, 33% “moderate” and 23% “liberal”. Non-Hispanic blacks are 23% “conservative”, 44% “moderate” and 28% “liberal”, which makes sense considering black people tend to vote Democrat (as self-destructive and damaging as that is for the black communities around the country). Hispanics are 35% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 25% “liberal”, which makes sense because Latinos tend to be more closely tied to the nuclear family (though plenty do also tend to vote Democrat, most likely because many are here illegally and the Democrats are the open borders party).
Finally, when it comes to region, you find that those living in the East are 32% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 28% “liberal.” In the Midwest, you find 38% “conservative”, 35% “moderate” and 23% “liberal”, which makes sense and aligns well with usual electoral maps. In the South, you find 41% “conservative”, 35% “moderate” and 21% “liberal”. And in the West coast, interestingly enough, you find 34% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 27% “liberal”.
That last one is interesting considering the West coast is often considered the “Left” coast because of the tendency of those states to vote Democrat. But there are a good number of farmers and land owners in those states, and farm and land owners tend to be conservative, even if the biggest population centers in those states are heavily liberal.
But regardless, it is interesting to note just how truly few people in this country actually would consider themselves “liberal”. There are far more conservatives and “moderates”, generally people who are “center-right” in this country than there are Leftists, even if what we often see and hear does not outright reflect that.
Again, Leftists need to be loud because they don’t have the numbers. They infect every organization they can to appear to be the mainstream and popular opinion, when that generally isn’t what they are. Most people are either conservative or at least do not agree with most, all, or even some liberal policies or ideologies. And I can only hope that the gap between conservative and liberal continues to grow, not only for the sake of the country, but also so that many might turn their lives over to Christ.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In an article where I defended the idea of Christians defending President Trump, I noted how it was sinful to lie and to bear false witness against someone. In this case, I am certainly not surprised that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg would lie and bear false witness against the Founding Fathers, but I still feel the need to clean the stain that he is trying to leave behind.
Speaking to children in a school (making sure they grow up to hate America just as much as he does), Mayor Pete tried to convince the children present that the Founding Fathers were silly, ignorant troglodytes who did not understand right from wrong and did not understand that slavery was not good.
“Similarly, the amendment process; they were wise enough to realize that they didn’t have all the answers, and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery, or civil rights. It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing. They did not respect civil rights, and yet they created the framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution too and ensure true equal protection for all,” said the fake Christian.
While it sounds like he is praising the Founding Fathers in some places, he is doing nothing but passive aggressively insulting them when he is completely wrong about this.
Of course, the fake Christian Democrat was blasted online for his words, with people like historian and columnist Jay Cost saying: “The ignorance is astounding” on Twitter.
To further emphasize just how ignorant and wrong Mayor Pete is, he elaborated that the guy who wrote the Constitution, Governor Morris, “gave an amazing series of speeches in Philadelphia denouncing slavery.”
James Madison, on August 8th, 1787, made notes of the debates regarding the text of the Constitution featuring Morris and wrote:
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert ‘free’ before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south widely & every step you take thro’ ye great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
Suffice to say, as Madison’s own words can be considered, many of the Founding Fathers were vehemently AGAINST slavery and found it to be an abhorrent practice. When Madison writes: “Are they property? Why then is no other property included?”, he is basically talking about the discussion and debates they had been having over this matter. No one was debating whether someone’s house was property, or whether someone’s dog as property or whether someone’s furniture was property. They were debating whether slaves, fellow human beings who very much look like human beings, even if they have a different skin color, are property or are to be considered their fellow Man, and it’s quite clear where James Madison stood on this.
And Madison is far from the only Founding Father to hold slavery with such disdain. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most often demonized for having owned slaves at one point, had originally written this in a draft of the Declaration of Independence but eventually took it out: “He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”
Jefferson is charging King George III with waging war against HUMAN nature and violating the sacred right to life and liberty of PERSONS in Africa that he sent to the colonies to turn into the slaves of the highest bidders. If he didn’t consider African slaves to be people and humans, he wouldn’t have written this in his draft and the only reason I could consider for having taken it out is because some people were debating in favor of holding slaves and did not want that part in the Declaration of Independence, as it would’ve delegitimized their slave-owning practices.
In a letter to Lawrence Lewis on August 4th, 1797, our nation’s first president, George Washington, wrote: “I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery.”
Washington, by the way, was another target of the hateful Left as being demonized for having owned slaves at one point, but he clearly loathed the practice.
Our nation’s second president, John Adams, wrote on June 8th, 1819: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States… I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in… abhorrence.”
Our Founding Fathers minced no words about how they felt about slavery. Now, Leftists could say “but if they hated it so much and thought it so evil, why didn’t they do something about it?” and I’ve already explained elsewhere why this is: slavery, as a practice, was dying at the time, not to mention that they did do things to end slavery.
From December 2nd, 1793 to March 3rd, 1795, the 3rd Congress debated and eventually passed a bill to suppress slave trade and prohibiting the U.S. from trading with foreign countries. What’s more, multiple sessions in the Senate and House held debates regarding the abolition of slavery for a very long time.
For a time, the U.S. prohibited slave trading ships from entering and limited the number of slaves. Again, the practice was dying and Congress, at least the Senators and Representatives who wanted to end the practice and had the power to do so, worked towards killing the practice faster. The only thing that made slavery worse and caused a resurgence of it, particularly in the South, was the invention of the cotton gin, which made picking cotton (which used to be extremely difficult and hardly worth the hassle) a far easier thing to accomplish. This drove up demand for slaves to pick cotton and as a result, slave trade continued and, as I said, got worse until the Emancipation Proclamation.
The notion that our Founding Fathers “did not understand that slavery was a bad thing” is completely erroneous and ignorant. The Founding Fathers, particularly the notable ones, ABHORRED the practice of slavery and hoped that it would be put to an end one day, having done what they could with the time that they had. And the work they did in limiting and prohibiting slave trade would’ve been quintessential to ending slavery altogether in the country if the cotton gin had not driven up demand for slavery and caused Congress to amend and lift those prohibitions.
The Founding Fathers made their views on slavery perfectly clear and it is wrong for anyone, let alone a Presidential candidate, to smear them as these ignorant Neanderthals who hardly knew right from wrong and stumbled their way to allowing for future generations to change things for the better. Not that I expect any different from Pete Buttigieg or anyone else on the Democrat Party. Their hatred for this country, particularly for its founding principles, is no secret. Failed Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke also tried to smear the country’s very founding as racist and bigoted. No Democrat running for president, and no Democrat holding any sort of electoral seat, can be said that they hold any love for this country.
And with ignorant statements such as the ones by Buttigieg, it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is always unfortunate to see when supposedly Christian organizations, be it Chick-fil-A or “Christianity Today” switch allegiances in support of Satan, but that is basically what occurred recently when the editor-in-chief attacked Trump’s morals and character and demanded that Trump be removed from office because of what LYING LEFTISTS have alleged about him.
Mark Galli writes: “The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
Do you want to know what else is profoundly immoral? Lying to people and bearing false witness.
Trump did NOT attempt to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to “harass” and “discredit” one of his political opponents. He asked Zelensky about an investigation Ukraine previously had of Hunter Biden and the company he worked for, Burisma, because the guy was making $50k a month in a job he did not qualify for and even ADMITS wouldn’t have gotten without his dad being Vice President of the United States. He asked about an investigation into Burisma that ended because Joe Biden bragged about WITHHOLDING AID TO UKRAINE IF THEY DIDN’T FIRE THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER.
He asked about the very real possibility of THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION abusing power to protect the former VP’s son. He asked about Crowdstrike and their involvement with Ukraine officials in an effort to further investigate foreign involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
To say that he attempted to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit an opponent is not only a massive lie, but defends the false witnesses during the impeachment hearing. HOW IS THAT MORAL?!
The answer is that it isn’t and this guy should know better, but he doesn’t.
Further, he asserts that Trump “has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals,” as though that speaks poorly of him. Do you want to know who has been convicted of crimes (or will be on trial for it)? Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign advisor for a few months before being fired, likely because Trump found out about his ties to Ukraine and his illegal business dealings; Michael Flynn, who was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI, even though Comey admitted he didn’t think he lied and simply did not remember things correctly, and even though the FBI held an interrogation of him under false pretenses where he didn’t have a lawyer because he didn’t think what he was going to say would be used against him in a court of law; Roger Stone, who was arrested and charged with procedural crimes (same as Flynn, though with more charges) and Michael Cohen, who violated campaign finance laws himself and lied about it.
NONE OF THESE DAMAGE TRUMP’S CHARACTER. They were all largely arrested, persecuted and subsequently prosecuted (some, not all) because of a rabid Left wanting to hurt anyone who was close to Trump. People close to Trump being sent to jail doesn’t make Trump a bad guy, otherwise we would have to claim that JESUS was a bad guy because John the Baptist, the Apostle Peter, and virtually every Christian who professed the faith were arrested and imprisoned.
Just because you or someone close to you is sent to prison, that doesn’t make you a bad or immoral guy. Plenty of innocent or good people have been sent to prison. Would this guy argue that everyone the Soviet Union imprisoned or executed was a bad person? How about Communist China imprisoning and executing people? They want to imprison the Hong Kong protesters who are fighting for freedom and liberty. Does that mean the protesters are immoral people?
Rome imprisoned and crucified our LORD AND SAVIOR. Clearly, the argument of “hiring and firing people who are convicted criminals” means absolutely nothing, particularly considering just WHO was persecuting them.
Not that I expect Galli to agree with me on this point anyway. Mark Galli is the same man who adored and lionized in the biography that he wrote of Karl Barth, a neo-orthodox theologian who excused Stalin's crimes against humanity due to the "intention" behind Marxism:
"[I]t is pertinent not to discriminate in our view of contemporary Communism between its totalitarian atrocities as such and the positive intention behind them," Barth once wrote. "And if one tries to do that, one cannot say of Communism what one was forced to say of Nazism ten years ago (this was written in 1949) - that what it means and intends is pure unreason, the product of madness and crime. It would be quite absurd to mention in the same breath the philosophy of Marxism and the 'ideology' of the Third Reich, to mention a man of the stature of Joseph Stalin in the same breath as such charlatans as Hitler, Goerin, Hess, Goebbels, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Streicher, etc. What has been tackled in Soviet Russia - albeit with very dirty and bloody hands and in a way that rightly shocks us - is, after all, a constructive idea, the solution of a problem which is a serious and burning problem for us as well, and which we with our clean hands have not yet tackled anything like energetically enough: the social problem."
Basically, Barth excuses the atrocities that even he recognizes because it was for a "good cause". Hitler also thought he had a "good cause" and I will RIGHTLY talk about that monster in the same breath as Stalin. To see that Galli wrote Barth's biography and thinks highly of him (Barth also denied that the Bible was the Word of God and that the witness account of Jesus' resurrection was accurate, so the guy was not even a CHRISTIAN) makes plenty of sense, considering Galli is, in all likelihood, not a Christian either.
Galli then writes: “[Trump] himself has admitted to immoral actions in businesses and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud.”
Fellow Christians, it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that if you ever did anything immoral in your past, you cannot be saved whatsoever. Trump admitted to immoral actions in businesses and relationships with women. Clearly, there is no hope for Trump or any of us.
Trump does not remain “proud” of his past, otherwise, Melania wouldn’t still be married to him. There’s no doubt in my mind that he apologized to her and, more importantly, to God for his previous sins.
Thank the Lord that Galli is not God, otherwise, no one would be saved because there’d be nothing we could do. He chooses to judge Trump on something I’m certain GOD no longer does.
“His Twitter feed alone – with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders – is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused,” Galli wrote.
Hey, guys, apparently, it’s an impeachable offense if the President says stuff on Twitter that you don’t like.
Look, I don’t care if you like or dislike what Trump does on Twitter. But Trump does not “mischaracterize”, “lie” or “slander”. He points out the truth about people, he tells his side of the story (because the fake news media will lie about him constantly) and he will fight back against those who actually do slander him. And precisely because it is his way to tell his side of the story (basically his only way), virtually anyone who wanted to actually fight back against the Left and against the fake news media would do, say, and tweet the same exact things.
Laying down and accepting the libelous criticism you receive is not the Christian thing to do. Giving up to Satan is not the Christian thing to do.
Would Jesus do what Trump is doing? No, but if He were to run for POTUS, He’d be slandered and lied about EVEN MORE than Trump is. THE PHARISEES LIED ABOUT AND SLANDERED HIM IN HIS OWN TIME TO THE POINT WHERE THEY HAD HIM CRUCIFIED!
I’m not saying Trump is perfect, but those who whine about his Twitter antics miss the bigger picture and can, at best, be described as peacetime conservatives (if they are conservatives in the first place).
Galli then goes on to say how the impeachment hearings “made it clear” that Trump abused his power for personal gain and betrayed his oath of office. Allow me to return to the point about a false witness, because that is exactly what this guy and the “witnesses” during the hearings were doing.
The “witnesses” were not witnesses to anything. They did not witness Trump “abusing his power”. They were Leftist, elitist college professors who hated Trump. They were people who, at best, could only provide THIRD-HAND KNOWLEDGE about Trump and what he was doing. The hearings PROVED NOTHING which is precisely why impeachment became LESS popular AFTER the hearings.
Galli then ends by daring to say that Christians who support Trump should reevaluate their support:
“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
A couple of points here. First, a “blackened moral record” means nothing if Trump is repentant of it.
King David had an affair with a married woman and then tried to cover up his immorality by sending the husband of said woman off to die at the frontlines of battle. Samson succumbed to temptation and slept with a woman who betrayed him and robbed him of the strength God had given him (temporarily). Saul of Tarsus hunted down and executed those who professed Jesus as the Messiah. Abraham got impatient with God and slept with his wife’s servant in order to have a child that was not promised to him. Solomon fell to idolatry. Peter denied Christ three times. Moses killed an Egyptian guard and fled justice for decades. Need I go on?
Look throughout the history of humanity and you will not find a single person who was free of sin, except literally Jesus Christ. EVERYONE has a blackened moral record, including me, including you, and including Galli. Romans 3:9-12 says the following: “What then? Are we Jews any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’”
President Donald J. Trump is a sinner. But guess what? SO IS EVERYONE ELSE! But that doesn’t matter if God has already forgiven us of our sins, through repentance. Only two people further condemn after repentance: Man and Satan. So it’s no wonder that Galli would continue to condemn Trump, despite his own iniquities.
If Christians “reverse course” on their support for Trump and await someone who does not have a history of sin, they will wait UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD. Only God is moral, only God is good, only God is without sin.
The second and final point I wish to make about Galli’s conclusion is that I find it interesting that Galli recognizes the evil that is abortion and yet, does not recognize that if Trump is brought down and defeated, that very evil will be unleashed and run amok worse than we have ever seen.
There isn’t a single person on the Democrat field that is against this evil of abortion. They all advocate and DEMAND abortion be easily-accessible, even in the third trimester and up until birth. Murder is the Democrat Party’s biggest agenda item and Donald Trump has been THE MOST PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT in recent history.
The Democrat Party is the party of Satan. With Trump out of the picture, they get to do whatever they want, pretty much. As much as I like Mike Pence and think he would make an excellent POTUS, he’s nowhere near as popular as Trump is. If Trump is removed from office, Pence likely would not be elected in 2020 and one of the Satan-worshippers would be.
This is what so-called anti-Trump “conservatives” and “Christians” fail to understand: get rid of Trump and the country belongs to Satan in the blink of an eye. This doesn’t just mean that abortion will be more rampant, but Christianity itself will be more heavily targeted and persecuted. For crying out loud, a man in Iowa was sentenced to 16 YEARS in prison for setting a pride flag THAT WAS HANGING ON A CHURCH on fire.
People might try and downplay the numerous conservative judges being placed by Trump, but it’s those conservative judges that can help Make America Great Again and keep injustice like that from occurring, because not only was that a clear violation of the 8th amendment, but also, the sentence was ADDED ONTO because it was considered hate speech by the Leftist judge, a clear violation of the FIRST amendment.
THAT is a far bigger threat to the constitution, the country and CHRISTIANS, than Trump asking for a foreign country to CONTINUE THE PREVIOUSLY HALTED INVESTIGATION THAT WAS HALTED BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL QUID PRO QUO BY BIDEN.
Charging Trump with immorality when LITERALLY EVERY CANDIDATE ON THE LEFT WANTS TO BRING ABORTION-ON-DEMAND AND PERSECUTE ANY AND ALL DISSENTERS is not only incredibly stupid, but not exactly a Christian thing to do if Trump has repented of his sins, as I believe he has.
But again, I doubt Galli actually is a Christian, considering he holds the socialist and unbelieving Karl Barth in such a high regard. Mark Galli has no moral authority to say anything about anyone, let alone Trump or any Christian who supports him.
“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I’ve said many times when discussing the prospect of impeachment, particularly since the process began back in October, the Democrats were stuck between a rock and a hard place (entirely because of their own actions and impatience) when it came to any potential vote on impeachment. Either they voted in favor of impeachment to please their base, despite the fact that the topic does not poll well and by the time the vote took place, most polls (even reliably Leftist ones) showed that people opposed impeachment more than supported it, or they voted against it and risked seriously ticking off their own base.
Either route would almost certainly lose them the House come next election, something even Nancy Pelosi was acutely aware of (and we’ll return to this shortly). Now, they’ve chosen what I personally had suggested: vote to impeach to appease your base. It will screw them over anyway, but at least their blood-thirsty base won’t come after them (or at least, the ones that voted in favor of impeachment, as two Democrats voted against the first article and three voted against the second article, with Tulsi Gabbard voting “Present” for both).
But with the impeachment pretty much over (either Pelosi sends impeachment to Senate, where Trump will be acquitted or she doesn’t send it to the Senate and absolutely nothing happens and Trump is still the president either way), some Democrat strategists warn that Trump absolutely could still win in 2020 despite being impeached.
“Yes, he can win,” said Democrat strategist Chris Kofinis. “And presuming otherwise is a recipe for repeating the mistakes of 2016. This isn’t a national election. He is going to lose the popular vote by 2 to 3 million votes, but the battlegrounds are still competitive and he won the Electoral College.”
More specifically, Kofinis said the POTUS could be reelected “because if you look at past elections, no incumbent president has lost an election with a growing economy and peacetime conditions.”
Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics also said that the 2020 election was “Trump’s to lose.”
“Trump wins if the economy and his approval ratings are about the same a year from now as today, and turnout is typical. But if the economy stumbles, his popularity flags or Democrat turnout is big, the Democrats win,” Zandi told Bloomberg News.
Now, I will make a few points here.
First, I will repeat a point I made some time ago when Pelosi said that “it doesn’t matter” if the Democrats lose the House in 2020. If impeachment were as popular as they try and make us, particularly Trump supporters, believe, then why would the Democrats lose risking the House?
Furthermore, if impeachment truly was the “winner” that the Democrats think it is and celebrate like it is (Merry Impeachmas, everyone!), then why would Trump be capable of winning in 2020? Not only that, they are saying 2020 is Trump’s to LOSE. Doesn’t impeachment usually mean a pretty bad thing for a president? Doesn’t it usually mean that a vast majority, or even a simple majority, of people want to get rid of the POTUS? So then why would Trump stand to win in 2020 despite being impeached?
This brings me to my second point and something that the Democrats don’t even want to consider: Trump won’t win despite impeachment. He will win BECAUSE of impeachment.
Granted, a strong economy and peacetime conditions will take Trump far and will likely be the biggest reasons for Trump to win reelection in 2020, as I have said multiple times in the past. However, impeaching a popular president will only HELP said president.
Usually, impeachment is a stain on a president and his presidency. It’s not typically a good thing for a president to be impeached. But this is not the case for Trump. It’s not a stain, but a badge of honor, for a number of reasons.
First of all, this was entirely a partisan impeachment. Only three presidents were ever impeached, and two of them were on a partisan basis. The other president to be impeached on a partisan basis was Andrew Johnson, whose impeachment we’ve already explained was a disaster and an example of what not to do with impeachment, largely because it was so partisan (although 17 members of the House chose not to vote, so we don’t know what way they would’ve gone).
Second of all, consider who is trying to get rid of Trump: the Deep State, the Washington Establishment. They’ve been trying to get rid of Trump since well BEFORE he even got elected. Let’s not forget the “insurance policy” the FBI was looking to get and the collusion the Clinton campaign did with foreign agents (British Oppo. Researcher Christopher Steele, Ukrainians, Russians, etc.) and with the Obama DOJ to try to steal the election away from Trump. Now, the same Washington Establishment has voted in favor of impeachment strictly along party lines.
Trump didn’t get impeached by elected representatives. He got impeached by partisan hacks in the Washington Establishment who have wanted this to happen since Trump got elected. He got impeached by partisan hacks who kept Trump and Republicans from being able to call in their own witnesses and demonstrate any semblance of fairness in the hearings. And now, those same partisan hacks demand Senate Republicans keep Trump from being able to defend himself, all in the name of “a fair trial” (by the way, a fair trial is fair for the defendant, not the accuser).
The Washington Establishment impeached Trump. That’s not a stain; it’s a badge of honor for Trump.
And now that the Democrats have voted against the American people, they will reap what they have sown. Again, if impeaching Trump had been as popular as they led themselves to believe and attempted to convince others (a CNN poll showed that DEMOCRAT support for impeachment fell from 90% to 77%, showing just how much this sham has backfired on the Democrats), they wouldn’t risk losing the House in 2020; they wouldn’t risk Trump getting reelected and actually being the FAVORITE to win the election.
Multiple elected Democrats and media people celebrated Trump’s impeachment after the House vote (and some were even close to celebrating as the first article got passed, until Pelosi hilariously reminded them “we’re supposed to act somber, not happy” about impeaching Trump), believing themselves to have done some sort of justice for the country or that Trump will be gone soon.
They live in their own world where they believe the vast majority of people agree with them and those who do not are so few in number as to be largely irrelevant. They don’t realize the landmine they stepped onto the minute Pelosi suggested they might begin an inquiry into impeachment.
That opened the can of worms that the Democrats will have to deal with next year because impeachment really was their only option, not because Trump actually committed any crimes or impeachable offenses, but because they either impeached him and appeased their base at the expense of ticking off everyone else and losing 2020, or they didn’t impeach him, ticked off their own base, and still lose in 2020.
They banked on finding something actually impeachable or criminal out of Trump’s July 25th phone call with Zelensky, or at least, find something along those lines with anything regarding Ukraine, just like they banked on finding something criminally wrong or impeachable with the Mueller probe. When that inevitably failed, they knew they still had no option but to trudge along and impeach, essentially being asked what kind of flavor of poison they would want to drink.
Now, I’m not saying Trump is guaranteed to win in 2020. The last thing I would want is for people to feel so sure about it as to be complacent and not go out to vote for Trump. That would be the only way for Trump to actually lose (assuming things basically stay the same for the next 11 months). One of the reasons for Hillary to have lost was that she herself was fairly complacent and assumed she would win. As history has shown, such arrogance can lead to terrible defeat.
While I spent the day of impeachment like it was any other Wednesday, we should keep in mind that the Democrats would’ve actually gotten away with this junk if they had had a majority in the Senate, certainly enough to convince NeverTrump Republicans in the Senate to vote for removal.
This impeachment was neutered because we all knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere solely due to the lack of votes in the Senate. But given the chance, the Democrats will take the Senate and get rid of Trump, so when the next election comes around, remember that the Left hates you so much that they would get rid of anyone they don’t like and FORCE you to live with it.
Recently, Trump tweeted the following picture:
And he’s definitely right. The Democrats didn’t impeach Trump because he did anything impeachable or criminal. They impeached him because they HATE the fact that YOU rejected them in 2016. The entire Mueller probe was a result of them refusing to believe that you would be so stupid (in their minds) as to reject them. “Don’t you know they are the best hope for America and that they only want peace and love and prosperity and equality? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT, YOU STUPID, INBRED NAZI HILLBILLY!?”
That’s basically what the Left is: they pretend to be tolerant but absolutely HATE YOU if you don’t submit to them. You refused to submit to them in 2016, so they saw fit to punish you as a result.
Come 2020, they will receive the biggest loss they have seen since 1984, provided, again, that you guys still go out and vote for Trump because they cannot be allowed to hold an entire nation hostage out of vengeance for the results of an election they didn’t like.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Hours after President Donald J. Trump assumed office, the Washington Post ran a story titled “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun,” signifying the insane Left’s desire to get rid of Trump as soon as possible for any given reason.
And earlier this week, after two and a half years of Trump-Russia collusion hoax, sex with a porn star garbage, false allegations of campaign finance violations, accusations of obstruction of justice by the mere thought of removing Mueller, accusations of obstruction of justice by firing Comey and accusations of bribery and quid pro quo with Ukraine in what is considered (by the Left) an effort to “dig up dirt” on Biden, the Democrats have announced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
What are the articles of impeachment? “Abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”… Really? After everything; after all the fake news stories accusing Trump of X or Y or Z; after all the “concerning” accusations of collusion with a foreign government to steal an election; after all the “concern” surrounding the possibility of Trump firing Mueller (which he was legally able to do); after all the “concern” surrounding Trump’s desire to “dig up dirt” on Biden, “offering” a quid pro quo and maybe even “bribing” Ukraine in order to supposedly steal another election, this is all they have?
I suppose I can understand why they wouldn’t go with bribery, considering it would lead to Biden being implicated and maybe even be called by the Republican Senate to testify as part of the removal process and getting rid of that charge would save Biden’s behind, at least for now, but still, what two flimsy and terrible articles of impeachment.
For two and a half years, we were told that “Mueller had the goods” and that Trump would face “justice” for “stealing the election away from Hillary”. We were told that Trump colluded with Russia for two and a half years. We were told that Trump was a scumbag for doing a porn star. We were told that he committed campaign finance crimes by paying off said porn star. We were told that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. We were told that Trump bribed Ukraine.
Three years of nothing but accusations left and right about some crime that Trump committed or something major that should “concern every citizen of the United States of America” and all the Democrats have are “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”?
First of all, even Leftist professor Johnathan Turley argued that the charge of “abuse of power” could apply to every president. “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do,” Turley said during one of the impeachment hearings.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) even gave a few examples of conduct by former presidents and asked if they were impeachable under the charge of “abuse of power”:
Buck: “So let me go with a few examples and see if you agree with me. Lyndon Johnson directed the Central Intelligence Agency to place a spy in Barry Goldwater’s campaign. That spy got advance copies of speeches and other strategy. Delivered that to the Johnson campaign. Would that be… impeachable conduct, according to the other panelists?”
Turley: “Well, it sweeps pretty broadly, so I assume so.”
I would also assume so, considering Nixon was threatened with impeachment for doing something rather similar.
Buck then continued with a few other examples: “Okay. Well, I’m going to go with a few other presidents, we’ll see where we go. Congressman [Ted] Deutsch [D-FL] informed us that FDR put country first. Now, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he was president, directed the IRS to conduct audits of his political enemies – namely Huey Long, William Randolph Hearst, Hamilton Fish, Father Coughlin. Would that be an abuse of power for political benefit according to the other panelists? Would that be impeachable conduct?”
Turley said that yes, it would be.
“How about when President Kennedy directed his brother, [Attorney General] Robert Kennedy to deport one of his mistresses as an East German spy? Would that qualify as impeachable conduct?,” asked Buck.
Turley also agreed that it would be.
Turley also agreed that it would fall under the terms of an impeachable offense when Buck pointed out that Kennedy ordered the FBI to wiretap Congressional staffers who opposed him politically (what’s with Democrats always spying on their opposition?).
Buck then pointed out that Obama appointed people to the National Labor Relations Board outside of Congress and was challenged by the Supreme Court and lost in a 9-0 vote, and asked if that was abuse of power. Turley also agreed that that would fall under the broad definition of the term.
Buck also pointed out how Obama ordered his national security adviser and Secretary of State to lie to the American people about whether the U.S. Ambassador to Libya was murdered because of a YouTube video (that never existed) or because of terrorism. Turley also eventually said that it would be.
Buck went on to name a few other presidents, including Lincoln and Washington, and named things that, under the broad definition of “abuse of power”, would’ve gotten them impeached.
Turley ultimately said the following: “It’s not that abuse of power can never be an impeachable offense. You just have to prove it. And you [the Democrats] haven’t.”
Generally, the charge of “abuse of power” would have to be among a long list of other impeachable offenses because it’s so hard to prove and define. For any impeachment process, if that charge is the main one, or even one of TWO charges, there is not much hope for impeachment.
President Andrew Johnson was impeached on the grounds of “abuse of power” in 1868, was acquitted by the Senate by one vote (there were only 54 Senators at the time and the vote was 35-19, with 36 having been needed to remove Johnson). The impeachment of Andrew Johnson, though it did come awfully close to actually removing the guy, is widely considered a cautionary tale and an example of what Congress should not do.
The Democrats even cite that precedent as a positive and hold that “illegitimate motives”, even if no actual crime has been committed, are cause for impeachment:
“Rather than directly target President Johnson’s faithless execution of the laws, and his illegitimate motives in wielding power, the House resorted to charges based on the Tenure of Office Act. But in reality, ‘the shaky claims prosecuted by [the House] obscured a far more compelling basis for removal: that Johnson’s virulent use of executive power to sabotage Reconstruction posed a mortal threat to the nation – and to civil and political rights – as reconstituted after the Civil War… [T]he country was in the throes of a second founding. Yet Johnson abused the powers of his office and violated the Constitution to preserve institutions and practices that had nearly killed the Union. He could not be allowed to salt the earth as the Republic made itself anew.’ Viewed from that perspective, the case for impeaching President Johnson rested on his use of power with illegitimate motives.’”
Rather interesting that the Democrats would cite a failed attempt at removing a president in their own attempt at removing the current president. They argue that the House was right in impeaching Johnson on the grounds of “illegitimate motives” and “abuse of power”. And yet, while the House did impeach him (should be noted that the House was controlled by the Republicans, though Johnson was a Democrat who was Lincoln’s VP until his assassination), the Senate did not remove him (though it was close).
The attempt to remove Johnson failed, and yet, the Democrats are going to try and do the same thing, only with perhaps even flimsier reasoning and even less likelihood of success.
At least the Republicans had proved that Johnson abused his power as executive. The Democrats have not proven a damn thing in relation to Trump’s “abuse of power”. It’s far too broad of a definition for it to be a viable ground for impeachment, at least on its virtual lonesome. The charge of “obstruction of Congress”, I mean, I don’t even know where to begin with that one. What “obstruction of Congress”? Are the Democrats impeaching Trump for the tweets he sent out during the hearings? Or is it because he refused (with legal means) to participate in this impeachment hoax? Actually, it’s worse than that. The Democrats are accusing Trump of “withholding evidence” of his abuse of power… so, if Trump withheld evidence of his abuse of power, what evidence do the Democrats have that he abused his power?
Oh, yeah, all their evidence is hearsay from third or fourth-hand sources.
But all things considered, holding impeachment hearings on dubious grounds and for political reasons (which Schiff even admits to, saying that this is about the next election), thus keeping either the House or the Senate from being able to legislate is obstruction of Congress, wouldn’t you think?
And what about Schiff’s abuse of power in acquiring and releasing phone records from multiple people, including members of the media, who are public citizens? When will his impeachment come? Or how about Biden’s abuse of power in threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor investigating his son’s company? He doesn’t hold political power anymore (and hopefully never will again), but why isn’t he held accountable?
Suffice to say that the grounds of impeachment from the Democrats is actually far weaker than I was expecting. I knew they had nothing to impeach Trump for, but they’re charging him with far fewer things than I expected. Granted, what I expected was charging Trump on the grounds of “being mean” or “being racist” or something else that is equally stupid, but still, only two charges from the people that accuse Trump of being literally Hitler? That’s kind of surprising to me.
Regardless, the outcome will not be a surprise to any of you. Democrats will vote to impeach, nowhere near 67 Senators will vote to remove Trump (even if the usual suspects, i.e. Romney, Collins and Murkowsky vote to remove) and Trump will go on to win in a landslide in 2020, keep or grow numbers in the Senate, retake the House and continue to watch as poll after poll attempts to sound the alarm that Trump, not the Democrats, is the one winning on this issue.
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Every year, a Senate Republican writes up a “Wastebook”, a report of numerous unnecessary and highly wasteful spending that our government partakes as though we have a limitless supply of money. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has been in charge of making this report for a few years now. Here are some of the things that our government chooses to waste our tax money on:
1) $153,000,000 on the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
Spending money on public transport is expected; spending millions upon millions of dollars on a failing system in the hopes of fixing problems by throwing money at it, however, is wasteful. Yet, this is what the government did in 2019 and will likely continue doing for years to come: throw money at problems and hope they magically get resolved. Money can, indeed, help with this problem, but it has to be spent wisely.
2) $300,000 to fund debates and Model U.N. competitions… in Afghanistan.
Ignoring how much of a miserable joke the actual U.N. is, why would we fund debates and Model U.N. competitions outside of the country? Wouldn’t it make more sense for, oh, I don’t know, AFGHANISTAN to be funding things that happen in their country?
And by the way, this is a point I will make more than once in this article, so brace yourselves.
3) $708,466 to fund research involving making Zebrafish addicted to nicotine.
Literally why? What purpose does this serve? To discover the effects of nicotine on fish? Who does that help? We already know what it does to humans, what information could we gain from doing this research? And why so much of it? What is the money going towards, giving the fish expensive Cuban cigars? Research to figuring out how to light a cigarette underwater? Figuring out if the fish prefer using pipes while reading the morning newspaper?
4) $84,375 purchasing a statue from American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan to place in the U.S. embassy in Mozambique.
… I don’t even know what to say about this. Ironically, this was in the middle of the government shutdown back in February, back when Leftists were “worried” about how the government was going to pay government workers and help the poor. I don’t know, maybe not paying for a statue made by Bob Dylan might help there, wasteful Washington Establishment.
5) $4,658,865 to study the connection between drinking alcohol and ending up in the ER.
Alcohol makes people dumb. Dumb people make bad decisions. Dumb people hurt themselves. Dumb people sometimes end up in the ER. Can I get my government grant now?
6) $16,000,000 to improve the quality of schools… in Egypt.
Like with the Afghanistan point, why does THE U.S. have to pay for this? Shouldn’t the task of funding education in Egypt go to the Muslim Brotherhood, who control the nation? We have our own problems with the quality of our schools. Kids don’t even know WHY WE FOUGHT WORLD WAR II FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! THEY THINK WE DID IT TO GAIN OUR INDEPENDENCE! RASMUSSEN SAYS THAT 42% OF YOUNG PEOPLE SUPPORT SOCIALISM! Obviously, that last one is because of the Marxist professors and curricula that has deeply poisoned our education system, but still. Young Americans are airheads, for the most part, which is the precise reason Pelosi and Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16.
7) $33,921,175 to buy textbooks for students… in Afghanistan.
One thing I would like to ask is why it is we are still fighting a war there, 18 years after 9/11, when they get such nice, incredibly undeserved treatment from us. Like I said before, shouldn’t this type of stuff fall on the Afghanistan government to take care of? And if someone wants to argue “they’re too poor, they need help”, then why do We the People need to pay with our tax dollars? There are organizations out there that help with funding for school supplies, textbooks included, which are mostly funded by willing donations from people. Why do we have to foot the bill for the education of people who hate us?
8) $22,000,000 to bring Serbian cheese up to international standards.
Look, I like cheese as much as the next guy. But why in the world are we spending upwards of $20M to help Serbian farmers improve the standard of their cheese? Shouldn’t that fall on the farmers themselves if they hope to compete in the marketplace? Or, if you wish to go the socialist route, at the very least, shouldn’t the Serbian government be in charge of that if government assistance is so necessary? Why are we wasting $22M on cheese many of us will likely never have? I didn’t even know Serbia made their own particular kind of cheese! For all the money going to them, they better be able to compete with Kraft, or else, that is an even bigger waste of money.
In total, these things add up to $230,672,881 in unnecessary and highly wasteful spending. And before any liberals want to cry out to me “but Trump is President now! The spending is on him!” keep in mind that Congress has power of the purse, meaning that they decide what the federal budget would be for a particular year. The Washington Establishment rules in Congress, so they get to decide how much of our money to spend each year. If Trump vetoes those budgets, the government shuts down and we get weeks upon weeks of the media yelling that Trump is starving families and that whistleblowers get left out on the streets.
Want to know why our national debt is at $23 trillion? Because we are funding for research regarding making fish addicted to nicotine and trying to figure out why drunk people end up in the hospital so much. Things that either are ridiculous to fund or unnecessary, or both. If the idiots in Congress ever get the bright idea to stop wasting money on vanity projects like these, we would be an unstoppable juggernaut in the world, at least financially.
And sure, at the end of the day, $230M plus in a multi-trillion dollar federal budget isn’t much, but this only looks at a FEW things that the government unnecessarily wastes money on. This is far from the dumbest things the government funds, but is a small sample of those things.
War with Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia would not destroy us. Trade wars with China and Russia would not destroy us. Foreign interference into our elections wouldn’t destroy us. Wasteful spending like this, and particularly, the ramped up wasteful spending that the Left plans to do when they eventually win elections again, such as Medicare for All and GND, is what will destroy us.
We can’t continue spending money we don’t have. That’s simply not sustainable.
“Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man’s dwelling, but a foolish man devours it.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
For a few months, I have mostly mentioned impeachment in passing, mostly as part of an overall point in an article that slightly relates to it. But after a few months, and in particular, two weeks of the House Democrats rigging impeachment rules in their favor, denying due process for the President, and denying Republicans the chance to interview their own witnesses, we find that support for impeachment has either been ticking down as time went on or not really moved at all – neither of which are good for Democrats who need to gain ground in order for this to not be a total failure.
None of the witnesses the Democrats interviewed actually witnessed anything and could, at best, offer second or third-hand knowledge of the situation. Trump releasing the transcript of the July 25th phone call with Zelensky essentially ruined the Democrats’ efforts because now, they can’t say that something happened when it didn’t and hope that a vast majority of people believe them. With the transcript, we have the ability to read what was said during the call and find that no quid pro quo actually took place, or that, even if you wanted to stretch things a little, that it’s not exactly an impeachable offense to ask for a foreign government to investigate someone who happens to be a political opponent when they possibly and likely committed crimes in that country.
After all this time, we find several polls that have bad news for Democrats and one that attempts to keep Democrats energized about impeachment but ultimately is mostly fake news.
First, let’s look at the Huffington Post/YouGov poll. This poll shows that only 42% of all adults believe that Trump is guilty of withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens.
For the fact that we had roughly two months of non-stop anti-Trump propaganda (specifically talking about Ukraine and quid pro quo; the anti-Trump propaganda has been around for years at this point) and two weeks of hearings that supposedly were Trump’s “worst” weeks and the testimonies of the “witnesses” were “damning” and very “damaging”, 42% is hysterically pathetic.
It gets worse, too. 57% believe Trump is either innocent or are unsure about whether or not he is, which is devastating for Democrats trying to prove guilt and being reinforced by fake news sites that they are doing a good job. Granted, 26% of that 57% are unsure, but again, the Democrats are tasked with building a case to at least convince people that Trump is guilty, even if they cannot prove that, and are failing miserably at it.
Even worse than that, even among the 42% of those who say Trump withheld aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens, only 40% of them said that that is an impeachable offense. So out of the relatively few people who believe Trump is guilty, even FEWER people believe it’s an impeachable offense to do what he did, with the rest believing Trump’s actions were either “appropriate” (16%), “inappropriate but not impeachable” (26%), or are altogether unsure (18%).
So even out of the few people that the Democrats have convinced Trump did what they allege he did, the vast majority of these people do not necessarily agree with the idea that Trump’s actions are impeachable. That is hilarious.
Let’s move on now to a Politico poll. Prior to the hearings, support for impeachment stood at 50%. It now stands at 48%. Still higher than I honestly think they generally are, but considering it’s a DROP FOLLOWING THE SUPPOSEDLY DEVASTATING HEARINGS, that tells you an awful lot about how badly the Democrats messed up here. When support for impeachment of Trump drops AFTER Democrat-led hearings occur, that’s a clear-cut sign that the hearings were a massive flop. They were meant to convince people that Trump should be impeached and try and prove something nefarious occurred between Trump and Ukraine, but they had the opposite effect: less support.
Even worse for the Democrats in this poll is the support from Independents. Prior to the hearings, 37% of Independents opposed the inquiry. Now, that number stands at 39%. 44% of Independents now support impeachment, down from 47% before the hearings.
Again, considering the purpose of the hearings, this is devastating for Democrats hoping to build a case against Trump. Proving that Trump broke the law isn’t the point of impeachment. Yes, the basic premise is that impeachment should occur when high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred, but actually proving they happened isn’t necessary for an impeachment and removal. What’s necessary is partisan politics and the ability to convince the public, at least a sizeable majority, that the President is guilty, even if he or she isn’t, and they should be impeached and removed from office.
Impeachment is a political tool to get rid of the opposition, not a legal proceeding. And at this, the Democrats are failing abhorrently.
Even the one poll that attempts to keep Democrats from being discouraged (from CNN, if you can believe it) doesn’t exactly help them once you read a bit into it.
CNN reports that support for impeachment sits at 50%, with 43% disagreeing. On the outset, this is good for Democrats, but again, once you read into it, that changes. You see, these numbers are exactly the same as they were before the hearings. They didn’t improve following the hearings, they just remained the same.
And this is the only poll that says that they didn’t move, either. Considering the fake news hole that CNN is, you can bet that they oversampled Democrats to the point where the figures remained unchanged.
But regardless of what the case may be, not one of these polls is really a positive for the Democrats. Again, they have to build a case in favor of impeachment and have to convince people to side with them. They are either not improving in doing that at best (in one poll) or flat out shooting themselves on the foot (in multiple polls).
This, coupled with the fact that Trump’s overall approval is ticking up even in some of these polls, and the fact that both Rasmussen and Emerson report that 34%+ of African Americans support Trump, and you have a recipe for disaster for Democrats moving forward.
They are left with two terrible options: impeach a popular president with little support, sending it to Republicans in the Senate who will 100% vote to acquit and actually give the President due process (and most likely expose the dealings of the Bidens, thus hurting Joe in the long run as a Democrat candidate), or not impeach Trump and risk their base’s wrath and their donors clamping up their wallets, potentially losing the House in the process due to lack of support from their own base, let alone those outside of it.
Granted, I fully expect this to lead the Democrats to lose everything come 2020 no matter what choice they make (particularly if Biden is the nominee, which I doubt), but Pelosi has to choose the better of two terrible options.
I think the Democrats will ultimately vote to impeach the President, if only to save themselves from the ire of their base (which they should know very well, considering one hardcore Leftist Democrat has had to recant her statement that she opposed impeachment). Of course, the issue would then be sent to the Republican-controlled Senate, where they will give Trump due process and even likely choose to investigate the Bidens and expose their corruption (which isn’t all that hard to do) and eventually vote to acquit the President.
This impeachment sham will likely be remembered as the biggest political misstep in the history of this nation. And while I understand why the Democrats chose to pull the trigger on impeachment so quickly once the Ukraine story was out, it’s still a terrible misstep. The Democrats bet that Mueller would deliver the goods and that failed after two and a half years. Now, a year away from the 2020 election, the Democrats want to avoid Trump getting another four years as POTUS, and considering the weakness of their presidential field, they opted to rush into impeachment as soon as the story broke out.
The problem came when Trump released the transcript of the phone call, showing his innocence and stripping the Democrats of their ability to lie about what was in it (granted, they still tried to do it, but it obviously flopped). Of course, ultimately, Trump still did nothing wrong, but again, public opinion is what matters.
The release of the transcript threw a wrench into the Democrats’ impeachment hopes and now, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Democrats now have to pick their poison in whether or not to impeach Trump, knowing that neither will be good for them moving forward.
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
A little over a week ago, I wrote an article detailing how phony and fake a “climate emergency” statement was because it claimed that 11,000 scientists had signed on to it, pointing out how only 1% of those “scientists” were actual climate scientists and the rest were either scientists of a different field and therefore were not entirely trustworthy on the issue of climate change or were simply not scientists or NOT EVEN REAL PEOPLE, with Mickey Mouse and Professor Dumbledore having “signed” the statement. What that article has in common with today’s topic is in the theme of fictitious, phony crap.
You see, recently, mayor of South Bend Indiana and 2020 Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg boasted having a list of 400 “black” people from South Carolina endorsing his “Douglass Plan”, a plan with the supposed aim of helping black people in America.
They boasted about how “hundreds of South Carolinians” were supporting the plan (and made it vague enough to make it look like they subsequently supported Mayor Pete) but there are a number of problems here.
First of all, 42% of the list of “black supporters” are white. The list doesn’t make it easy to find people who actually supported the plan, given that it only puts people’s names in the list and many have fairly common names like “James Wilson” or “Mary Williams”. But of the total 422 names on the list, only 297 are on South Carolina’s voter file. Of those that can be checked in the voter file, 184 of them are listed as “white”, so at least 42% of the entire list is white and 62% of the voter file list is white.
This is extremely similar in nature to what I was talking about before with the climate “emergency” statement. Now, I don’t know if Mickey Mouse is also listed as endorsing the “Douglass Plan”, but a good number of the people listed in the “black” supporters of the Plan are not black.
Second of all, it’s likely that not everyone in that list actually supports the Plan. State Rep. Ivory Thigpen is a Democrat from the state of South Carolina and is listed as one of three prominent endorsers of the “Douglass Plan”. So are Columbia City Councilmember Tameika Devine and SC Democrat Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero. All three of them are listed as prominent endorsers of Mayor Pete’s plan, but upon learning about it, they all said they did not endorse it or him.
Councilmember Devine said that she endorsed the plan, but the e-mail was written in a way that made it look like she endorsed Buttigieg, which she did not. “Clearly from the number of calls I received about my endorsement, I think the way they put it out there wasn’t clear, that it was an endorsement of the plan, and that may have been intentionally vague. I’m political, I know how that works… I do think they probably put it out there thinking people wouldn’t read the fine print or wouldn’t look at the details or even contact the people and say, ‘Hey, you’re endorsing Mayor Pete?’”
State Rep. Thigpen, whom Councilwoman Devine says is a supporter of Mayor Pete, has actually endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for President and said that it was “alarming” that his name would be shown there, because while he had made contact with the campaign, he thought he had made it perfectly clear to them that Crazy Bernie was his guy and was not supporting or endorsing Mayor Pete or his plan.
Dem Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero also said that he did not support the mayor’s plan nor the mayor himself: “I never endorsed that plan. I don’t know how my name got on there…”. Cordero explained to The Intercept that he had asked the Buttigieg campaign questions regarding the Plan, such as who drafted the plan and if black people were involved in the creating of the plan, going along the line of thinking that black people should know best what it was that a plan should have to help black people in America, but that ultimately, he did not come to the decision to endorse it.
But regardless, all of them had some sort of issue or another with Mayor Pete’s e-mail and boasting of supposed black support for his campaign as a result of this Plan. The fact that some of them didn’t even know they were “endorsing” the plan brings me to my next and final point:
There was an “opt-out” option in the endorsement, not an “opt-in”, meaning that you automatically are registered as an endorser and supporter if you don’t read through the fine print and specifically reach out to the campaign to tell them you do not endorse the Plan.
This is, interestingly enough, a similar tactic to what Big Unions use to rob employees. The National Right To Work Foundation has an article about this, detailing a complaint an employee of United Airlines had against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) for requiring that he “opt-out” of paying union dues and fees despite the fact that he was not a member of the union and the union used sketchy tactics of forcing people to respond with little time about not wanting to have their paychecks deducted in “support” of the union.
It’s nothing short of Soviet-style theft and the National Right To Work Foundation is helping the United Airlines employee to sue the union giant for violating Supreme Court precedent regarding union dues and fees and for violating the man’s First Amendment rights afforded to him by the Constitution of the United States.
And this is the tactic the Buttigieg campaign opted to use (pun intended). If you’ve been contacted by the campaign about the Plan, you automatically endorse it unless you specifically tell them you don’t endorse it. And no indication is made that this is how it works, so many people are left officially “endorsing” the plan when they had not actually intended to do so.
I could only imagine the firestorm that would befall the Trump campaign if they employed similar tactics. And while many are, rightfully, bashing Mayor Pete for such sketchy tactics, others, such as The Washington Post, report that “Buttigieg persuaded hundreds of prominent black South Carolinians to sign onto the plan even if they are not supporting Buttigieg himself.”
The lie in this fake news article becomes very clear when you know the truth. Buttigieg FORCED hundreds of South Carolinians, not all of whom are black, to sign on to the plan that makes it look like they are supporting Mayor Pete and the three prominent black South Carolinians on the list either had a problem with the messaging or did not support either the plan or the mayor.
It’s extremely sketchy and very risky, considering he has virtually zero support among black people across the country, particularly in South Carolina. And it blew up on the guy’s face because of how obvious a farce the whole thing was.
Not that I expect anything less from someone who lies about being a Christian.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the many lies the fake news media often tells is that suburban women in America are approving less and less of President Trump, leaving the fake news reporters to believe that Trump is “finished” and will be soundly defeated come next November. Considering how wrong they have been about so many other things and considering how many other news reports should have “finished” Trump long before any of this, I’m surprised they still buy the crap they are selling. Drug dealers aren’t supposed to use their supply, but these people are constantly inundated in the garbage that they spew, so they believe it.
But in any case, fake news polls have tried to suggest that Trump is losing ground fast with suburban women, a demographic that usually leans Republican. However, this is far from the truth.
According to a recent report from OpenSecrets.org, President Trump has more suburban women donating to him than any of the 2020 Democrat candidates.
As you can see, President Trump tops the list of both Suburban Women Donors at 10,534, with Kamala Harris coming in behind him with almost 3,000 less donors, then Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Beto (who is no longer running), Crazy Bernie, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro and finally, Tulsi Gabbard.
He also tops the list of total contributions from suburban women donors at $8,293,135. Grace Haley, a researcher working for a research group that tracks money in American politics, wrote: “Suburban women, who power a significant electoral battleground, are a key demographic for 2020. Since Trump’s inauguration, more than 7,000 women in suburban districts have given large-dollar contributions to his campaign. That totals $8 million, the most of all candidates.”
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner noted that in 2016, 28% of Trump’s “itemized contributions” were from women. For 2020, that number stands at 35%.
Now, when it comes to women in general, the President ranks 5th in donations out of all candidates at $15.1 million, behind Crazy Bernie ($17.1 million), Fauxcahontas, Mayor Pete, and Kamala Harris. But that’s just on paper.
According to OpenSecrets.org, “Campaigns are not required to itemize donations of $200 or less, so we do not have demographic information about Trump’s small donors giving to his joint fundraising committees with the Republican National Committee, Trump Victory and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. An estimated 59% of Trump’s donations are from small-donors, so Trump’s contributions from women are most certainly higher than $15 million. Trump’s totals are underestimated more than the other candidates. Because Democrats are relying on ActBlue and the Republicans are not relying on the Republican equivalent WinRed as significantly, we only have most (not all) donor demographic data for Democratic small-dollar donors.”
In other words, while the President’s total from large-donor contributions puts him in 5th place, that only contributes to about 40% of his total contributions. He easily could be far higher, maybe even number one among women, if small-donor contributions were taken into account and recorded.
But even if we don’t know for sure just how much more money women have been giving Trump, one thing is for sure: he is not in 5th place and he has accrued more than $15 million from women in America.
Amy Kremer, chairwoman of Women for America First and co-founder and chairwoman of Women for Trump PAC, told Breitbart News that it’s “no surprise that women are contributing to the president’s campaign” because many women in the suburbs have families to take care of. “Women are focused on issues that impact our children and our families and President Trump is delivering results.” She also added that when women donate to him, “it’s an easy donation when you know what you are going to get in return and this president has followed through on his promises, and his policies have been good for women and their families.”
Open Secrets also made sure to mention that the Trump campaign acknowledges that suburban women often support the President more than reported because “the polling data does not account for suburban women who favor Trump but do not feel comfortable publicly saying so.”
This is generally true about many other things and within other demographics. Often times, people believe that Trump is such a polarizing figure that they do not wish to express support for him to media pollsters out of fear of shaming or persecution, so they withhold that support, either saying they are undecided, do not support him at all or say they support him but not too strongly.
This tends to happen because the media and the Democrats have been so toxic about anyone supporting Trump that people figure it’s better to keep your mouth shut or not express outward support for Trump and stay out of unnecessary conflicts. Most people just want to live their lives undisturbed by hateful people, so they support Trump because he’s not a nutbag like the rest of the Democrats, but won’t publicly admit it out of fear of being verbally or physically attacked or maligned.
But while people might be fearful of publicly supporting the President, they certainly show their support come election time or when it comes to donations. It’s part of the reason some ill-intending Leftists have tried to dox Trump donors because many won’t outright state they support Trump but still support him anyway and these hateful bigots can’t bear the thought of living next to a Trump supporter.
However, regardless of the circus that the Democrats orchestrate in the impeachment hearings (and oh boy, are witnessing some prime circus material here with Schiff establishing different questioning rules for Democrats and Republicans and with one of Schiff’s star witnesses admitting that he thinks Burisma should be investigated, which is what Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for), regardless of what the media tries to spin out of it and what the media tries to report (it started with quid pro quo but when there was clearly no evidence to support it, they shifted to “bribery” which is equally as lacking in evidence), many people support President Trump.
And one couldn’t blame them when the alternatives are a decrepit old man yelling at clouds, a communist pushing for the increasingly unpopular Medicare for All (Rasmussen reports that only 39% of likely voters support the plan, which is far lower than it was just a couple months ago), a fake Indian, and a self-righteous fake Christian who blames God for “making him” gay. One can’t blame them when all of these people have no issue with giving free healthcare to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND DECRIMINALIZING BORDER CROSSINGS!
Like Kremer said, suburban women want what’s best for their families and will vote and donate accordingly. Back-breaking tax increases to pay for everything on the socialist wish list is not what’s best for families and children. Reduction of civil liberties and constitutional rights of free speech and bearing arms are not what’s best for families and children. Putting America Last is not what’s best for families and children.
Trump delivers the opposite (where he can, considering the little support he gets from Congressional Republicans) and advocates putting America First.
Doing that, and more importantly, returning to God, are what’s best for families and children, not to mention the whole of the country.
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...