Yesterday, I shared with you the first nine points out of a total of 27 that highlight the deceitful and scientifically-inaccurate nature of the climate cult. Today, we will go over points 10-18, another 9 points.
Without further ado, let’s begin:
10. GND would have no real impact on climate, even using U.N. and Al Gore’s claims
According to a 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute, the GND would have “no effect” on climate change, even if one were to use UN “science”, and the GND’s temperature impact would be “barely distinguishable from zero.”
“In total, completely enacted, funded, and efficiently meeting goals,” something AEI does not anticipate the GND to be capable of, the plan would cut the global increase in temperature by “0.083 to 0.173 degrees,” a figure that the report acknowledges is “barely distinguishable from zero.”
Even using climate models, the effect of the GND would be “barely detectable in the climate record,” according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who ran the GND’s alleged climate impact through the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s climate model simulator.
11. Greta’s of the world are being misled by adults who should know better
TIME’s Person of the Year award went to the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, despite her accomplishing basically nothing at all, only garnering media attention due to her age. The girl famously decried that she wanted everyone to “feel the fear I feel” with regards to climate change. This is completely unnecessary and speaks volumes of the malignance of the Left, allowing for a teen girl to be afraid to death over something totally fabricated.
And instead of calming her down and telling her the truth, like responsible, sane and civil people would, the Left puts her on a pedestal and uses her young age as a shield against criticism of the lunacy that her mind has been filled with. Greta Thunberg is not a “climate heroine”, she’s a victim whose life has been severely negatively altered by the lies of the Left. She claims that government’s inaction on climate change has stolen her dreams and childhood. They have been stolen, alright, but not by “government inaction,” but by a power-hungry, demonic Left.
12. GND, UN, Paris accord, carbon taxes, EPA regulations cannot alter the climate
Dr. Robert Giegengack made the obvious observation that “none of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
This point sort of calls back to point #2 in Part 1 of this 3-part series. That point talked about how CO2 was not the “control knob” of the climate and many other things affect the climate. The reason that Dr. Giegengack said this is because the governments of the world have demonized an essential part of our planet, thinking it bad and killing our planet, and have sought to eliminate it when it has little to do with the actual climate. This is the ecological equivalent to treating a cold in the hopes of curing cancer.
13. Sea level rise NOT accelerating
One of the Left’s favorite arguments is the claim that a rise in sea level will flood areas like L.A., Miami, etc. They also say that the rate for rising sea levels were accelerating due to climate change. This is a lie. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age happened and have been rising for around 20,000 years. There is no evidence to suggest sea levels are rising faster now than ever before.
According to former NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”
14. U.N. and others use climate hysteria for political agenda
U.N. official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, once said the following: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
My 11th grade Chemistry teacher taught us that scientists, if they lie about their findings and alter their data, and are found to have done so, risk losing their credentials and certainly all credibility. But when climate “scientists” with doctorate degrees lie about their findings and alter their data, they get awards and prizes for their lies, not scorn and punishment. The people that do this simply are not real scientists. Science isn’t about setting a narrative, it’s about clear, objective truth and fact and the attempt at discovering said truths and facts. To lie, whether for a political agenda, or for power, or for money, or for advancing one’s own career, is utterly unscientific.
15. U.N. IPCC climate panel is more of a political organization than a scientific one
Similar to the previous point, the U.N.’s IPCC is simply a lobbyist organization hiding behind the mask of science. Climate data analyst John Mclean concluded that “the UN IPCC is, in fact, no more than a craftily assembled government-supported lobby group, doing what lobby groups usually do.”
Climate Depot actually puts it quite well when they say: “the UN IPCC is a lobbyist organization that seeks to enrich the UN by putting it in charge of ‘solving’ climate change. If the UN fails to find man-made global warming a problem, it no longer has a reason to continue the climate panel and therefore cannot be in charge of proposing ‘solutions’ to climate change.”
Basically, the only reason the IPCC makes the claims that it does about climate change is because it HAS TO in order to even exist. If they find there is no man-made climate change, they go out of business, so to speak. So, they lie and they create problems that aren’t real so they get paid and have the authority to propose ways for people to live.
They are like those shady mechanics who break something or claim something is messed up and charge you to fix it when nothing is actually broken or at least, nothing was broken before you took your car to such mechanics. Except, these people are actually worse because, while they can’t “break”, so to speak, the climate, when they claim something is messed up, they propose that you change everything about your lifestyle. At least shady mechanics are only after your money; these people are after your whole lives.
16. Polar bears are thriving and extinction fears are baseless
One of the most famous climate change pictures is that of a polar bear floating in the ocean on top of a small bit of ice, big enough to barely support the large animal. With this image, we are given the dire warning that polar bears are “going extinct” because of climate change. However, a study from 2019 revealed that polar bear numbers may have “quadrupled”, and another study finds that polar bear populations are at highest levels:
“Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades. The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) but additional surveys published 2015-2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,500 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.”
In other words, polar bears are FAR from seeing extinction-level threats.
17. Gore did not mention polar bears in “An Inconvenient Sequel”
Do you want to know the biggest reason for the polar bear scare to happen in the first place? Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”. But since the film’s original release in 2006 to the sequel’s release in 2017, we’ve only seen polar bear populations GO UP, not down as Gore predicted. As a result, he left the situation with the polar bears out of the film entirely because it didn’t fit with his narrative.
He doesn’t consider it good news that polar bear populations have increased, despite what concern he may have pretended to show over a decade ago. If the world is not literally on fire, Al Gore can’t make his money, and news that the world isn’t literally on fire is a bad thing for Gore.
18. Extreme weather does not follow predictions
In the last point that will be shared for today’s article, we find a topic that I personally have also talked about at length. Back in 2017, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who should be rather recognizable for those who have been reading these articles for a while now, testified to Congress that there was “no evidence” that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, etc. were increasing. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 Special Report that extreme weather events have not increased and that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”
They also report that there is low confidence in “the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.” In other words, cyclones and droughts have not been more prevalent as time has gone on. In fact, extreme weather is either in no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Dr. John Christy eloquently explains why extreme weather claims are so unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis.”
This is a point I have also made myself, when the Left decries global warming when it gets hot during the summer and global cooling (or just climate change) when it gets cold during the winter. Basically, they are saying “whatever happens, we are right and we should be very afraid.” That’s the issue with the term “climate change” in general: it covers the only two possibilities of global warming or cooling and Leftists pretend they are right either way. As I have explained before, this is nothing short of a complete and utter copout.
But regardless, this is where we will leave off until Monday. Again, we see the disgusting lies, deceit and crap being passed off as “science” that the Left attempts on a daily basis with the issue of climate change. They insist we “feel the fear they feel” about something that is based entirely on lies and altered data.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Before I begin this article, I should mention that I did not come up with these points myself. They were brought up by Climate Depot in a rather lengthy article where they explain that paper copies of their 36-page report of what they call “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” were distributed at the UN Climate Summit in Madrid on December 10th, 2019.
However, I feel the need to write about this and highlight their points to you guys, so here we go: the 27 talking points that point out how the hysterical climate cult either alters facts, uses non-scientific “facts” or outright lies about things in an effort to scare people into submission for the purposes of building a global communist government:
Many have attempted to say that the “facts are undisputed” on climate change because there is a “consensus” of scientists who agree that we are facing a “climate crisis” or some such nonsense. However, there are a couple of problems with that. First of all, there is no study or poll that gives credence to that figure. UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol said of this so-called consensus: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”
The second problem with this argument is that, even if there actually was a consensus on this, that doesn’t mean it’s scientifically accurate. There used to be a consensus that the Earth was at the center of the universe. There used to be a consensus that people could be witches in Salem. There used to be a consensus that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe. And yet, each and every one of these things were corrected as more scientific evidence became available.
2. CO2 is not the “control knob” for the climate
To say that CO2 is the only, or even the biggest, influencer of climate change is simplistic at best and outright ignorant at worst. There are many factors that influence the climate, from sun activity, to volcanic activity, to ocean cycles, land use, tilting of the Earth’s axis, etc. The levels of CO2 we see today are actually, geologically speaking, among the lowest in earth’s history, as far as we know.
3. We are not facing a “climate emergency”
The preferred terms in previous years and decades have included: global cooling, global warming, climate change, etc. “Climate emergency” is nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell people on the idea that they must act quickly before it’s too late. It’s no different, conceptually, to seeing an ad that screams at you: “Act now, before it’s too late!” or “If you call now, you’ll get double the items for the same low price as one!” or something else that is meant to get people to act with urgency and with little thought.
4. Doomsday clocks have been around for centuries and are nothing but garbage
As explained in previous articles, the first prediction of an ecological catastrophe dates back to 1864, when George Perkins Marsh, who is known as the father of American ecology, warned about the earth’s “noblest inhabitant” going extinct as a result of “climatic excess” and a home becoming “unfit”.
What’s honestly hilarious about this is that there isn’t even much consensus about when exactly we’re all going to die. AOC famously claimed we would die in 12 years if climate change wasn’t “addressed”. Prince Charles, in July of 2009, warned that we would be at a “point of no return” in 96 months. That was 125 months ago and people are still pushing back the “tipping point” because they keep being proven wrong but they won’t admit they are totally wrong about the climate.
5. Actual scientists don’t demonize CO2 as a pollutant
Physicist Freeman Dyson, often known as “Einstein’s successor” says, “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.”
CO2 has been demonized by the Left as a “pollutant” and a “poison” both for the Earth and for people. And while high levels of CO2 inhalation are fatal (as most high levels of consumption of anything usually is – if you drink more water than you should, you would die, despite how essential water is for us), carbon dioxide is essential for life on Earth. We, ourselves, are carbon-based lifeforms. Eliminating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would prove to be fatal for us, and as previously mentioned, CO2 levels are among the lowest the Earth has seen (again, as far as we know).
6. The GND is not “green” or “new”
The GND, according to Bloomberg News, would cost roughly $93 trillion over the next ten years if made into law today. This, put simply, is totally unaffordable. Right now, we have a debt over $21 trillion. If we had anywhere close to the amount necessary to pay for the GND, we would’ve gotten rid of our debt long ago. Over the last ten years, we’ve accrued over $10 trillion in debt. This, long-term, is unsustainable and will play a part in the collapse of the United States, much as high levels of spending and debt led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. A country that can’t pay its fees isn’t a country that is very healthy and can last for a long time. Adding on nearly 10 times the amount we accrued in the last decade over the next decade would be a death sentence.
What’s more, it’s nothing but a communist ploy. Back in 1970, Amherst College professor Leo Marx (apt surname) warned about the “global rate of human population growth. All of this only to say that, on ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.” The guy envisioned a global government with the power to dictate people’s lives to the point where it can regulate birth rates and the population. This is communism under another name, what the GND aims to achieve (will talk about this in the following point), and this was proposed, again, back in 1970, making the Green New Deal neither green nor new.
7. GND is not about the climate
As previously mentioned in other articles, the GND is not about the climate, even to the admission of the very architects of the GND. Former AOC campaign aide Waleed Shahid admitted the GND was a “proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom.” AOC’s former chief-of-staff also said that the GND was less a climate thing and more a “how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” What’s more, only about $8-12 trillion of the $93 trillion plan would be spent on cutting carbon emissions and environmental stuff. The rest would be used for the Left’s economic agenda, healthcare and jobs (none of which would actually be provided, realistically), so the Green New Deal is about employing communism, not about solving any sort of “crisis”.
8. “Hottest year to date” claims are scientifically meaningless
When someone like, say, Obama, says that “this year was the hottest year to date”, what would someone who believes in the climate hysteria think? That the Earth is heating up by a lot of degrees, right? Well, when various years were claimed as being the “hottest” to date, closer examination of the data revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.”
Basically, people claiming one year to be the “hottest to date” are making scientifically meaningless claims that are only true on a technical, virtually-impossible-to-discern level.
9. Earth’s temperature not outside of natural variability
Arriving to the last point for Part 1, we find Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever pointing out that “.8 degrees is what we’re discussing in global warming. [Just] .8 degrees. If you ask people in general what it is, they think – it’s 4 or 5 degrees. They don’t know it’s so little.”
Similar to the previous point, people think that, when discussing temperature increases due to global warming, the Earth is heating up by a good bit, usually 4 or 5 degrees, with some maybe thinking it is increasing double digits. But we are talking about less than a degree of difference. Award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said: “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified… there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic… The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it, we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
For brevity’s sake, this is the last point we will discuss today. Tomorrow, I will release a Part 2 to this, going through points 10-18, and on Monday, Part 3, covering points 19-27, so 9 points for each part.
The reason for this is that, even if I’m covering each point with two paragraphs, there are a lot of points to go over and I don’t want to make an article that is about 5,000 words long. That wouldn’t be easy on me as the writer or on you as the reader. So for now, this is where we will leave off.
But to briefly conclude on the observations of today, it is quite clear how dishonest and actually dangerous the climate change cult can be. If allowed to succeed, we will see a global communist government dictating every aspect of our lives, using lies and deceit to drive fear into people to entice them into willingly giving up their freedoms in exchange for “safety” from climate change.
“It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.”
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.
Looking through the news, one can’t help but be overwhelmed at the sheer number of problems that people must face on a regular basis. We read stories about shootings, terrorist acts, foreign governments intruding in elections (mainly Ukraine), a whole political party seeking the impeachment of a president on the grounds of “we don’t like him”, people claiming to be a different gender from what they are, people attempting to justify and rationalize the murder of the unborn, people demanding increased immigration, legal or illegal, as a means of “enriching” our country, etc.
There are a whole lot of problems in Western civilization (and the world as a whole, but we’ll focus on the West today) and one can’t help but think: how did it all come to this?
The answer to this question seems to lie in the past, about 80 years ago, with the findings of Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin in his book called “Sex and Culture”.
Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to this book, but thankfully, Father John Peck does and has written a very good article about it on his own website: frjohnpeck.com. The article is titled: “Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought.”
In this article, Fr. Peck notes that Unwin examined data from “86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures.” In his book, Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture” and levels of flourishing of those cultures based on architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture and other sciences. Fr. Peck says that the “primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.”
These four great patterns are as follows:
Unwin also noted varying degrees of sexual restraint that tend to appear in any given culture. These degrees are divided into two categories of their own: prenuptial (before marriage) and postnuptial (during marriage).
First, there is the prenuptial category of Complete Sexual Freedom. As the name suggests, this is where there are zero restrictions on sexuality before marriage.
Second, there is Irregular or Occasional Restraint, where “cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence.”
The final prenuptial category is Strict Chastity, where the culture demands that people remain virgins until marriage.
Then, there are four postnuptial categories:
So, understanding all of these concepts and the way they work in the real world, what are the effects that Unwin ultimately found with these 86 societies and cultures? The short answer: nothing good for the cultures in the long-term if they allow for sexual freedom.
According to Fr. Peck, Unwin found that “increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.”
This is very significant because we can easily picture our own culture here. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Western civilization went through what is known as a “sexual revolution”, where old norms of chastity and virginity were replaced in favor of allowing people to do what they want with whom they want any time they want, provided no laws or human rights were violated. While it used to be that virginity was something to be kept until marriage, the very concept of it is mocked and ridiculed in our time. If someone doesn’t have sex by their late teens or early 20s, that person is considered an outcast if it is known that they are a virgin.
Unwin also found the most influential factor in a society’s flourishing to be whether or not prenuptial chastity was a requirement. If it was, that culture would typically flourish, while if it was not, that culture would descend into collapse and eventual replacement by another culture that has more social energy and for this to happen, the replacing culture has to have more sexual restraint.
This would explain, at least in part, why Islam is growing at the pace that it is. Of course, factors such as threatening people with “submit or lose your head” are taken into consideration here, but one of the very few pros of Islam is their sexual restrictions (apart from polygamy and killing of homosexuals, that is).
In today’s Western culture, if a girl gets pregnant at an early age, that is not usually seen as that big of a deal, even if it is a hindrance on the family, for a number of reasons. For one, abortion is seen as a viable, often preferable, option. Two, pregnancy is what often follows sexual freedom, so it is not seen as completely unexpected, even if not an ideal outcome.
But in cultures where there are high levels of sexual restraint, if a girl gets pregnant at an early age, the girl is subject to scorn and the family becomes extremely upset. This type of behavior, though seemingly harsh, tends to be a tool of discouragement for others to do the same.
Another of Unwin’s findings is that, when strict prenuptial chastity ceased to be the norm, categories of absolute monogamy, deism and rational thinking would disappear within three generations.
This is also rather easy to see in our own culture. With the sexual revolution happening a generation or so ago, we find less people in Western civilization who accept that marriage should be for life (50% divorce rate is the result of this), less people believe in God and less people accept objective truth and opt for subjective lies that comfort them, such as the belief that a man can be a woman and vice versa.
Basically, what we see today is the effect of the sexual revolution of the late 20th century. What Unwin noticed in the societies that allowed for sexual freedom are what is happening today: less acceptance in absolute monogamy and more acceptance of ending a marriage on the basis of “I just don’t feel the spark anymore”; less acceptance of God and His Sovereignty and more acceptance of abstract superstitions like cosmology, giving power to the mathematical concept of chance, and believing in “karma” or “chakras” or other nonsense; and less acceptance of objective, provable truths and more acceptance of subjective, improvable lies that serve to comfort the individual and provide them with zero conflict, or at least, that is the advertised objective.
These things, Unwin notes, tend to lead to the collapse and replacement of a culture. As previously mentioned, when a culture allows for total sexual freedom, said culture collapses within three generations to a level of essentially being a “dead culture” where people have little interest in anything apart from fulfilling their most carnal desires day in and day out and not seeking, maybe even rejecting, any attempt at actually understanding nature and creation. It is at this level where a culture is often subject to replacement by another culture.
I’ve seen semi-joking tweets from Ann Coulter about supporting Islam when there would be stories about Muslim parents protesting schools imposing LGBTQ curricula on students. As I’ve said time and time again in the past, the LGBT agenda and Islam are very antithetical with one another and, under Hegelian Dialectics, are bound to clash at one point or another. That is one of the examples of these two cultures colliding, and given Unwin’s findings, Islam will come out on top here.
If Christians were to do the same (and I don’t see many, if any, stories about Christian parents protesting LGBT curricula in schools, likely out of fear of persecution by Leftwing mobs), Christianity would also come out on top, provided it remains resilient on this issue and doesn’t try to give ground away, like the Catholic Church has done in allowing for gay priests, or like some protestant churches have done in allowing “Same-Sex Attracted” pastors to lead congregations.
But the very reason any of that has even happened is because of the sexual revolution being so popular in the Western culture in the first place. Churches, fearing people would abandon them, chose to follow the crowd, even if that meant abandoning God and flocking to what is inarguably considered in the Bible to be sinful. As a result, people have still abandoned churches, seeing no real reason to attend, and the churches have abandoned God, so they provide no actual reason for anyone to attend, given that the Gospel is no longer being preached (again, in some churches, not all of them).
The reason pastors like Joel Osteen are so popular is because they actually preach the Gospel and provide the basic message of “God loves you despite what you have done if you trust in Him”. This provides a rest from the secular, shallow world and helps people to find meaning in their lives.
The secular world, particularly as it allows for sexual freedom, has led to the destruction of the family. Mary Eberstadt researched mass killings, the rise of mental health issues and the surge and dominance of identity politics and found that these are a “primal scream” as a result of “the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity – essential for well-being,” as Fr. Peck also notes in his article.
In other words, the destruction of the nuclear family has given rise to many of the problems we see today, like mass shootings, general mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and the dominance of identity politics and the perceived importance of valuing oneself and identifying oneself based on their physical attributes, sexual desires, or made up victimhoods.
And the destruction of the nuclear family can also be traced back to the sexual revolution and to overall sexual freedom. When kids don’t know who one of their parents is, that’s a problem. When kids grow up thinking that having two dads or two moms or more than two parents is normal, that’s a problem. When teenagers are mocked for restricting their own sexual desires, that’s a problem. When people believe marriage to be a “union of love” without any concept of God being a part of that union, that’s a problem. When people conflate love with lust, that’s a problem.
These things are all a result of sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the early 20th century. Western civilization, much as I would hate to admit, will fall if this is not remedied. There is nothing inherently special about Western civilization that would have it be spared of this fate by God, particularly when said civilization is less and less likely to believe in God as time goes on.
On this site, we’ve already explained that Israel would often be punished for disobeying God and would be redeemed for returning to God and obeying Him again. Western civilization, having been founded on Christian principles, cannot live apart from such principles, as doing so would divorce it from God.
My desire is for Western civilization to return to what it once was: fearful, obedient and loving towards God, who would reciprocate such fear, obedience and love with love and blessings. Note that this does not mean returning to the way everything was in the past. The Left often tries to argue that “Make America Great Again” envisions an America where black people are either segregated from white people or are slaves of white people. That is not what MAGA means whatsoever. It only indicates a desire to return America to the greatness and power it once knew, economically, militarily, and culturally.
Unfortunately, while Trump can greatly succeed (and is succeeding as much as he can) in the first two endeavors, the last one is totally out of his hands and things don’t exactly appear to be moving in the right direction in that aspect.
If the U.S., and indeed, all of Western culture does not turn this ship around culturally, then it doesn’t matter if the economy is the best we’ve ever seen or if we can win any of the wars we currently are engaged in or possibly could be engaged in, for Western civilization will ultimately be lost as a culture and replaced by another.
And given the horrible options of Islam or Chinese supremacy, I would hope that Western civilization will return to God sooner rather than later.
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Of course, that question in the title is very rhetorical. The answer is that he does not know God. He knows of Him, of course, but does not actually know Him on a personal basis, otherwise, he wouldn’t say the crazy, wrong, and even at times, idolatrous, things that he says.
Saint Peter’s Square was holding the inauguration of the Vatican Christmas tree and Nativity scene last Thursday, and the Pope thanked the people of Veneto and Trentino-Alto Adige, who donated the tree and the Nativity scene.
But in doing so, Il Papa went on a tangent regarding his favorite topic: not the Gospel, but climate change and the “emergency” that we face.
“Today’s meeting offers me the opportunity to renew my encouragement to your people, who last year suffered a devastating natural disaster, with the demolition of entire wooded areas. These are events that frighten us; they are alarm signals that creation sends us, which summon us to immediately take effective decisions to safeguard our common home.”
Don’t know about you, but it sure sounds like he believes God is not actually sovereign and that the climate depends entirely on us to survive.
Of course, this is far from the first time Pope Francis has said ridiculous and seemingly idolatrous things. He’s often lambasted politicians for being “weak” regarding cutting emissions, has encouraged people to “adopt more simple and respectful lifestyles”, though does not show himself to be leading by example, and encourages people to seek the “old-age” wisdom of indigenous peoples and how they treated and lived with nature. Indigenous peoples were people who worshipped nature, not God, so I can see why Pope Francis feels at home with such ideologies.
But to return to his quote at Saint Peter’s Square, funny enough, I have already written an article discussing what he is talking about. In an article titled: “There Is No Link Between Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events”, I talk about… well… how there’s no link between climate change and extreme weather events like what northern Italy recently had.
If you remember, the ultimate conclusion reached in that article is that scientists researching this very topic found that “any trend of rising ‘climate damages’ were primarily due to increased population densities and economic activity in the path of storms and that it was, at this time, not possible to determine what portion of those damages can be attributed to greenhouse gases, which is something they don’t expect to change in the near future at least.”
What’s more, a 2012 IPCC report called “Special Report on Extreme Weather” ultimately agreed with these scientists on their findings that there was no actual statistical connection between climate change and extreme weather events.
The only reason any environmentalist whacko says that hurricanes are due to climate change is to frighten people into believing the cult’s ideologies. Because hurricanes exist and because they can cause damage, even death, then there must be a scientific explanation for them (there is). The Left has hijacked science to be a political tool (look at what they are claiming about gender) and insists that these hurricanes, which are real, is a result of man-made climate change, which is not real, and they provide no actual evidence to this.
Pope Francis is among the false teachers that the Bible warns us about. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 says the following: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
The Pope, much like other Leftists, hates the fact that he is not God Almighty. What the climate cult hopes to achieve is to turn mere mortals into gods, like Greta Thunberg. They seek to have the power of God, able to create and destroy, to be sovereign over all the universe. Convincing people that they have more power than they actually do, and that such power can be harmful to the environment and that this power must be controlled by the government and by the leaders (like Francis) aims to achieve what that letter to Timothy says. In order to suit their own desires, they get teachers (scientists) to say what they want to hear, instead of the truth.
It’s extremely obvious that Pope Francis is a false teacher, a false shepherd, a false prophet. He speaks of things he has no clue about, as evident by the fact that he insisted that extreme weather events are a result of climate change. But what is worse, perhaps, is the fact that he has the Truth available to him anytime he wishes to read it and still adamantly rejects it and perverts it.
Of course, he doesn’t explicitly say that he rejects the Truth of the Gospel. Doing so would get him removed from the power he has. But he rejects it every time he speaks such falsehoods. He does not trust that the Lord is in control; that He is sovereign over everything, including the weather and the climate of the world. He has no actual faith in God, so he turns to Man. He believes Man has the power to wrestle away control from God with regard to the climate – that we can turn up the temperature or cause it to severely drop if we so chose to.
He does not trust that, even if the climate does warm up or cool down, it is because God has created the Earth this way and because He has ordained it to be so. If God wanted to, He could make the climate completely static, utterly unchanging. He and He alone has the power to warm or cool the planet. To believe we are capable of wrestling away such control is heresy.
The Pope often says that we are “harming” the planet that God has given us because of the sin in our hearts. Of course, Man is capable of harming nature, there’s no disputing that. We can pollute lakes and other bodies of water. We can pollute the ground. We can pollute the air (by the way, it’s funny but not unexpected that whenever he talks about climate change, Pope Francis always attacks capitalism and does not say anything about China and their egregious polluting practices). However, being able to do that does not mean we are capable of forcing a warming or a cooling of the climate.
As stated in previous articles, the climate engages in a cycle of warming periods. There was the Roman Warming Period, which lasted around the same time as the Roman Empire did; there was the Medieval Warming Period and we are currently in the Modern Warming Period. Each of these Warming Periods denote a time when the Earth was abnormally warm, but even then, one can hardly call that “abnormal”. This is a cycle that appears to happen every thousand years, with one Warming Period and with no Warming Period in a millennium, so if it alternates like this, I’d say that the warming and the cooling is not abnormal at all. What would be abnormal would be any break in the cycle, either making the cycle last longer (the Warming Periods usually last 300-600 years) or making them way shorter.
This is the way that God has ordained the world to exist for now. One cannot realistically argue that any of these Warming Periods, particularly the Medieval and Roman ones, are a result of man-made climate change or are a result of our lifestyles.
The third chapter of the Westminster Confession of faith (which I recognize is a Protestant document, not a Catholic one, but I believe it to be accurate doctrine applicable to anyone who is a follower of Christ) begins with the following words: “God, from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and immutably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”
You don’t have to be a Protestant to believe these words to be true. You don't even have to be a Christian. If you believe in an all-powerful, sovereign God, you have no choice but to believe these words to be true. Whether you are a Christian, Jew or Muslim, this is something all theists believe and what all atheists do not believe. God, for all of time, by his own wisdom and holy counsel of His very own will, entirely freely and unchangingly ordains whatever happens. That means that nothing happens without His ordaining so. He isn’t caught off-guard by anything; nothing is a surprise to Him. He doesn’t look at anything and say “Didn’t see that one coming”.
So to assert that mere men, creation made from dirt by the Holy power of God and made in His own image, are capable of acting in a way that overpowers the will of God is an assertion made by someone whose life and heart and being do not totally belong to Christ. To believe that we are capable of wrestling away control from God in this manner is antithetical to the very belief system present in Christianity.
If one does not believe God to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and one does not believe that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, one cannot be considered a believer in God, because whatever god such a person believes in is not the One True God of Scripture and is nothing more than a fictitious, man-made deity, whose characteristics are created by Man, and not the other way around.
It is shameful that the man who is considered the head of the Church would be so lacking in faith. And even though he is far from the first Pope to not be a Christian, it is still shameful that such secular people could be put into what is considered the highest honor of Christendom in the mortal realm.
“My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Socialism brings with it a slew of massive problems that are extremely difficult to overcome, which is why the economic and governmental system is basically always a death sentence for any nation. Venezuela is currently experiencing this slow and painful death.
If they aren’t finding problems with gas and oil (despite being one of the most oil-rich nations in the world), they are finding problems with food sources. If not that, it’s medical problems. If not that, it’s electricity problems. If not that, it’s election integrity problems. Usually, these problems are not mutually exclusive and happen all at once. And most recently, we find that the country’s education system is all but obliterated.
The New York Times (of all people) published a story highlighting the fact that many kids pass out during class or school-hours in general due to a lack of food.
“Hundreds of children filed into their school courtyard to hear a local Catholic bishop lead prayers for their education… By the end of the 15-minute ceremony, five children had fainted and two of them were whisked away in an ambulance. The faintings at the primary school have become a regular occurrence because so many students come to class without eating breakfast, or dinner the night before.”
What’s more, many students have altogether stopped attending school ever since the schools stopped providing lunches. Others have also stopped attending due to an inability by parents to afford school uniforms.
In general, kids are far more encouraged to get a job and begin to help in providing their families with food and money than go to school. This sort of thing happens in two places: the Middle Ages and socialist countries.
I’ve already explained in multiple articles that socialism brings people to slavery and to antiquated times – times when people lived far worse lives and with less-advanced commodities afforded to them.
But a lack of food is far from the only problem the education system in Venezuela has to face. A lack of teachers is also a major concern. With the GDP per capita in Venezuela at about $2,500 a year, compared to the $55,000 in the US, teachers make almost nothing, as the NYT further reports:
“’An entire generation is being left behind,’ said Luis Bravo, an education researcher at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. ‘Today’s education system doesn’t allow children to become meaningful members of society.’”
“The government stopped publishing education statistics in 2014. But visits to more than a dozen schools in five Venezuelan states and interviews with dozens of teachers and parents indicate that attendance has plummeted this year. Many schools are shuttering in the once-wealthy nation as malnourished children and teachers who earn almost nothing abandon classrooms to scratch out a living on the streets or flee abroad…”
“In Venezuela’s most-populous state of Zulia, up to 60 percent of about 65,000 teachers have deserted in recent years, according to estimates by Alexander Castro, head of the local teacher’s union. ‘They tell us that they prefer painting nails for a few dollars than work for a minimum wage,’ Mr. Castro said… Maracaibo’s biggest school no longer has any functioning bathrooms. It was designed for 3,000 students; only 100 now show up.”
This, of course, is pretty bad news for the future of the country. With few children and even fewer teachers being around, there will be less high-skill workers available in the future. Children who perhaps had ambitions to become doctors and help out sick people might no longer have such an option due to hunger, a family struggling to just survive and needing all available hands on deck to bring in money and food, and people actually qualified to teach children becoming more and more scarce as time goes on.
And the biggest culprit here is none other than socialism. I’m not surprised whatsoever that the government of Venezuela stopped publishing education statistics in 2014. They would’ve been embarrassed and told that something was going terribly wrong in their little paradise.
If you remember, back in February of this year, Univision’s Jorge Ramos was detained by Maduro’s officials, who had him and his crew thrown into a security room and their equipment confiscated after Ramos made the mistake of showing Maduro, whom he was interviewing, a video of kids rummaging through a trash truck in search of food.
Clearly, Maduro doesn’t like to be told or shown that his socialist paradise is anything but that, and punished the American journalist as much as he could without violating international law. So it’s no surprise that in 2014, the same Maduro had ordered for information relating to education statistics to no longer be published and made known to the public. Anything that makes him look like a terrible leader and anything that could jeopardize his own power must be eliminated, even if it’s just a spreadsheet.
This is the way that socialist/communist dictators act. Maduro doesn’t care that his people are starving. He doesn’t care that there are electricity problems. He doesn’t care that there is a gas and oil shortage. He doesn’t care that people are dying due to the extremely shoddy healthcare system. He doesn’t care that schools are essentially being abandoned both by teachers and by students who can no longer afford to attend what are supposed to be considered “free” education facilities. He doesn’t care that children have to rummage through garbage in search of food. In his own eyes, he’s God.
He thinks he is beloved because everyone around him would risk execution if they told him THE TRUTH. He thinks there is no actual problem in Venezuela and any problems that may exist are either due to the “far-right” or they are just fabrications created by said “far-right”. He lives in his own little world, ignoring what his socialist policies are doing to his people, and living a grand life in his own palace.
He is the epitome of a socialist elite, much as the elites in D.C. are. These people live in their own little bubble, which is why the American elites bring in Harvard and Stanford Law professors (who have extensive records of anti-Trump sentiment and one of them might’ve become a Supreme Court Justice had Hillary won) to impeachment hearings to further spread hearsay and pass it off as objective fact. They think most Americans will be impressed by Ivy League Law professors but this very sentiment proves the elitist, snobbish culture of the Washington Elites.
Maduro is not too different, only he already has the kind of power the American Left wishes they had. But the problems that face Venezuela, though will absolutely never be remedied by Maduro, largely due to the fact that his ideology is the biggest reason for these problems in the first place, will only get worse as time goes by.
Like I said, kids not going to school is largely a problem for a country, and particularly, a country’s economy. Now, the economy is already in the toilet and no efforts are being made to improve it, but the future only looks worse for Venezuela if the trend continues. Never mind being a third-world country, Venezuela runs the risk of outright becoming a nation that is centuries behind the modern world.
Most children, if this trend continues, will only know how to perform manual labor or other generally low-skilled jobs. Jobs like doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and other generally high-skilled jobs will become more and more rare unless something drastic happens that changes things.
This is what rampant socialism does to a country. The U.S. wouldn’t be very different if it implemented socialism and totally, or mostly, replaced capitalism. The problems we see happening in Venezuela are problems that can happen in this country and, funny enough, tend to happen wherever there are socialists in charge. California is just one of these examples and would in all likelihood be a failing economy if it weren’t part of the United States.
Socialism/communism, like I said in my previous article, is a plague that must be eliminated completely.
“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It will be interesting to see what will happen over the next few days, weeks and months in China, because recently, protesters in southern Guangdong province, China, a province that borders Hong Kong, began to protest the communist government’s attempt at building a polluting crematorium near their town. Interestingly enough, the protesters also adopted slogans most commonly used by the Hong Kong protesters.
Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, a newspaper that openly supports the protesters, reported that protesters in Guangdong were using slogans used by Hong Kong protesters, such as “revolution of our times”, which the Chicoms consider to be “hate speech”, as well as “just like you, Hong Kong.”
It’s interesting that these protesters would use such slogans, considering the heavy censorship that the communist government implements with regards to the Hong Kong protests.
Breitbart News reports something else that is rather interesting: “The presence of support for the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement within China may signal greater problems ahead for the Communist Party, which spent much of 2018 crushing dissent from its Maoist ranks who see dictator Xi Jinping as too repressive of the proletariat and deviant from communist orthodoxy.”
That is very interesting to me because it points out the mindset of some people. This is what communism brings in general. It’s ironic that they are known as “Maoist” when his “Great Leap Forward” was responsible for killing 45 million+ people. It’s no surprise whatsoever that Xi Jinping would be repressive of the proletariat: when you eliminate or conform the bourgeoise, the proletariat is the only class left to foot the bill and to suffer the most.
Anyone who is a billionaire in China is only as wealthy as they are because of the government allowing them to be that wealthy. And the government allows them to be that wealthy because the billionaires help the Communist Party, be it through technological advantages to spy and further oppress the populace, or through pro-communist companies like Alibaba.
What Xi Jinping is doing is exactly what Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and other socialist/communist, big government types do: oppress their people and make them slaves.
Regardless, let’s return to the actual protests.
Time reported that the protests happened in Wenlou, roughly 60 miles from Hong Kong all throughout the weekend and last week. According to Breitbart: “Local officials had told residents they were in the process of constructing a ‘human ecological park’ in what they later revealed would be the site of a crematorium. Crematoria in China, as they are run by the government, are rarely subject to environmental controls and release blasts of harmful smoke and chemicals into the environment.”
What’s more, China uses crematoria to essentially erase any semblance of ethnic and religious minorities in an area like western Xinjiang province, and replacing them with atheist, Marxist members of the majority ethnic group Han. Now, I would ask what the point of building a crematorium in the region would be if I were completely ignorant of what communists like Xi Jinping intended to do with it. The crematorium would most likely serve as a symbol of oppression, where they would send dissenters’ bodies to be cremated (assuming they burn the people when they are dead).
In any case, China’s response to these protests are what you would expect out of them: violent crackdowns that reportedly are indiscriminate against who would receive such violence, as one resident told Apple Daily that the police would horrendously beat anyone who would attempt to approach officers, despite of the person’s threat level or intent. This included the elderly and children, as the two linked Twitter videos, captured by people present at the protests and published by humanitarian groups, show.
Suffice to say, communism is an abomination.
I find it extremely ironic that there are those who call themselves “Maoists” and are shocked that Xi Jinping would be doing this to the Chinese people. Last year, the Jasic Technology factory in Shenzhen, a city resting at the border of Hong Kong, held Maoist protesters demanding Chairman Xi that he “respect the rights of workers as a fellow communist”, according to Breitbart News. In response, local police, under orders of Xi, violently clashed with worker and student protesters.
This is what happens living under communism: if you don’t like what the government is doing, you get punished. And this is what the American Left wants to bring to our country.
When idiots like Mark Ruffalo and other Hollywood elites lambast capitalism, they are unaware of the fact that communism would prevent them from being able to speak out against the government when they feel it is doing something bad.
To give you some context, Mark Ruffalo, the actor who plays The Incredible Hulk in the Avengers movies, tweeted: “It’s time for an economic revolution. Capitalism today is failing us, killing us, and robbing from our children’s future.”
If we lived in a communist country and you would replace the word “capitalism” with the word “communism”, it wouldn’t be shocking at all how quickly Ruffalo would “disappear”. The guy claims to want socialism/communism but doesn’t understand at all what that would mean. The guy enjoys traveling to Washington D.C. (by plane, of course) to whine to politicians about how we are killing the planet. But if he were to try the same thing with the Chinese government, he would get censored at best and outright “disappeared” at worst.
Ignoring the fact that under communism, Ruffalo would be nowhere near a $30 million net worth, and even ignoring the fact that this guy spouts about how capitalism is “killing” us while enjoying the fruits of capitalism, the guy is either extremely and willfully ignorant about what’s happening in China or is extremely stupid.
Communism is hands-down the worst form of government ever created and the most oppressive one. The fact that so many people are attracted to it is equal parts sad and terrifying.
We should be learning from history. Communism has been tried and is currently being tried. It has always resulted in failure and will ultimately doom China. The only reason for China to still be afloat is their more capitalist approach to economics. But considering how antithetical communism is to the very basic desire for man to be free, China is on track to eventual self-destruction.
What we find in China is the direct result of decades of communism. It is an outright plague that must be eliminated.
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
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.
NYT: FBI Didn’t Spy On Trump, They Just Had Informants Secretly Ask About Trump-Russia Under False Pretenses
Imagine you are in a courtroom, hearing a defense attorney in a murder trial arguing to the judge that his client did not actually commit the murder despite all the evidence clearly pointing to him as being guilty. Imagine the defense attorney then attempts to argue the definition of “murder” and says: “Your Honor, my client did not murder the victim; he simply un-alived her without her consent.”
You would think that’s a pretty stupid argument, correct? And yet, that’s the sort of argument the New York Times tried to make recently about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign in 2016.
The NYT ran a piece where they attempted to downplay what will be in the Inspector General’s report regarding Obama-era FISA abuses and FBI spying into the Trump campaign before the 2016 presidential election.
Of course, the NYT doesn’t have the IG report yet because it will be released on December 9th. So what is their source of information? “People familiar with a draft” of the report aka anonymous sources that may or may not exist.
Here is a chunk of what the NYT wrote:
“The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.”
“… The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.”
“The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page – eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.”
It’s interesting that they would say that conservatives were claiming the FBI was spying on Trump, because that is also what the New York Times essentially admits later on IN THIS VERY PIECE.
Later in the piece, we read:
“The F.B.I was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.”
“Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopalous while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an ‘all time biggest political scandal’ when it emerged last year.”
“The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopalous in August 2016…”
So what exactly do we have here? An outright contradiction within the NYT piece. Read the very first part I shared with you again. The NYT said earlier that the report would find that there was “no evidence” that the FBI tried to “place undercover agents or informants inside” the Trump campaign. And later on, they say that they DID place undercover agents and informants, at least to engage in conversation with members of the Trump campaign under false pretenses to discuss Trump campaign affairs and report any information discovered back to the FBI.
That’s called “SPYING”. What’s worse is that this isn’t even the first time the NYT tried something exactly like this. Back in May of 2018, they had the following piece: “F.B.I. Used Informant to Investigate Russia Ties to Campaign, Not to Spy, as Trump Claims.”
Let me go back to my original hypothetical scenario of the courtroom scene. The defense attorney (NYT) has just claimed that his client (the FBI) did not murder the victim (spy on Trump) but simply caused her life to end by his hands without her consent (used an informant to extract information from Trump campaign staffers and report back to the FBI). Do you think the defense attorney is using an even semi-decent argument? OF COURSE NOT! He’s trying to make a distinction without a difference. He’s basically saying the same thing but trying to make it mean something else entirely.
“I didn’t rob the bank, your Honor, I just forcefully made a manual withdrawal of all the money in the safe while threatening to kill people with my gun.” It’s an insanely idiotic argument, but it’s what we’ve come to expect from the New York Times. How many stories have I written myself that discuss the outright idiocy of this “news” organization? How many stories have they written that I did not write about myself that are equally as stupid?
I don’t know what the IG report will ultimately say, but if it doesn’t fully acknowledge the FBI’s egregious attempts at spying on the Trump campaign, and in particular, James Comey’s actions of using the defunct Steele dossier as a means to try and get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then Horowitz messed up badly. Even by the NYT’s own admission, there were informants looking into the Trump campaign under false pretenses and trying to report back whatever they found. What the FBI did is out in the open and is, as Trump says, the all-time biggest political scandal in American history.
If this wasn’t about politics and only about possible ties to a foreign government, why didn’t the FBI look into Hillary’s ties to Russia and Ukraine? If this behavior is perfectly “normal” for law enforcement practice, why didn’t they plant a spy, oh, sorry, I mean an informant, into the Hillary campaign? With all the allegations regarding her and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign assistance, why didn’t the FBI think to look at her too, if this wasn’t about politics?
It’s not like there was any actual proof of Russian ties to the Trump campaign or the staffers themselves; just allegations. So if that was all it took, why did Hillary get a pass despite all the allegations surrounding her?
Rhetorical questions, all, as we definitely know the answer. The Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, something Lisa Page and Peter Strzok acknowledged given their texts about the then-POTUS knowing about it and given the “insurance policy” Strzok mentioned.
No amount of mental gymnastics and word redefining will erase the fact that the FBI, under orders from Obama, spied on the Trump campaign.
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
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.
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...