A series of events have occurred during and immediately following the results of this week’s Super Tuesday primary delegate race. For one, Mini Mike dropped out of the race after spending roughly $12 million per delegate (he got 53) and decided to join Amy Klobuchar, Mayor Pete and Beto O’Rourke in endorsing Joe Biden, the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the Democrats, as he is their only hope of beating Darth Bern.
With that, one of the biggest stories coming out of Super Tuesday is that Joe Biden is seemingly back in the race, even when he can’t figure out where he is half the time, can’t remember who our Creator is, and pulls the male version of Ilhan Omar, confusing his wife for his sister and vice versa. Despite the multiple months, caucuses and debates where it seemed Joe was completely dead in the water, he has regained his standing as the frontrunner, currently holding a lead over Bernie in delegate count.
While that is a worthwhile story for “The Comeback Grandpa”, there is another story that few are covering: President Trump’s impressive turnout despite his status as an incumbent president.
President Trump has primary challengers, though none of them are really worth discussing, but the incumbent usually is expected to outright win the primaries for their party. No incumbent has ever lost their party’s nomination (though there were some fairly close calls like Taft vs. Roosevelt and H.W. Bush vs. Buchanan) so it was fully expected for President Trump to win the primaries for the GOP. However, as an incumbent president, the turnout is particularly impressive, as incumbents usually don’t have as many people turning out to vote in the primaries.
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted the following, as the Super Tuesday results came in for the GOP: “We are seeing proof of the huge enthusiasm for Donald Trump in several states: In NC, POTUS has already blown past the # of votes he got in 2016. In OK, POTUS is on pace to receive 4 TIMES the # of votes of the last two incumbent presidents.”
“In AR, POTUS is on pace to receive DOUBLE the # of votes of the last two incumbent presidents. In MN, with just two-thirds of the vote in, POTUS has already received nearly 4 TIMES the # of votes as he did in the 2016 caucus. #WINNING.”
“MORE: Essex County, VT went for Obama in ’08 and ’12, but swung for Donald Trump in ’16 (aka “a Pivot County”). POTUS just received more votes there than all the Democrat primary candidates got in 2008. Update on NC: POTUS has received 150% MORE votes than he did in ’16!”
Chief of Staff for the GOP Richard Walters tweeted: “With 100% reporting in OK, Donald Trump has received over 270,000 votes. The President has not only surpassed his own vote total of 130,267 votes in 2016, he has over quadrupled the vote totals received by President Obama in 2012 (59,577) and President Bush in 2004 (64,389).”
What’s more, in North Carolina, with 95% reporting in, President Trump won the state with 93.5% of the vote, which far blows out of the water previous presidents. In 2012, Obama received 79% of the vote in that state. In 1996, Clinton received 81%. In 1988, Bush received just 45% and in 1980, Reagan received 68%.
Comparing Trump to Obama in 2012, we find the following figures:
Let’s begin with New Hampshire, since Iowa’s Democrat vote count is very weird, as they do not show the actual number of votes for each candidate but the number of “State Delegate Equivalent” votes, which shows up as a very small number. For example, Mayor Pete won the primary with 563 votes, with Bernie garnering 562 votes, but the GOP’s primary didn’t have this confusing vote count and shows Trump got over 30,000 votes, so I won’t compare the two parties’ vote count for Iowa. In NH, Bernie won the state with 76,324 votes, Mayor Pete received 72,457, Amy Klobuchar got 58,796, and Elizabeth Warren got 27,387.
President Trump got 129,696, as previously stated. That is far more than what Obama got in 2012 (like I said earlier) and by far defeats Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Democrats. Even if you put the top two winners together, they get less than 20,000 more votes than Donald Trump.
Let’s now look at California. The communist-run state was won by Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday, with him garnering 992,304 votes. Joe Biden came in second with 733,086. Bloomberg got 424,670 votes and Fauxcahontas got 357,306.
Pretty good, right? Well, President Trump got 1,441,031. Obviously, he got far less votes than all the Democrats put together, but there is a good reason I’m talking about this. Far-Left socialists are currently ticked off at Elizabeth Warren for staying in this race, taking votes away from Bernie, and allowing the “moderate” Democrat Establishment to rally around Joe. However, even if Warren wasn’t in this race, and assuming 100% of the votes that went to her would go to Bernie instead, that’s still not enough to defeat Donald Trump.
Putting the “two” socialists in this race together in California (Bernie and Warren), they amassed 1,349,610 votes. That’s still almost 100,000 votes shy of Donald Trump. Now, I’m not saying that California is all that likely to go to President Trump in 2020, but it is fairly interesting that the “two” socialists here still got less votes together than Trump in total.
What’s more, Matt Vespa from TownHall.com asks the fairly rhetorical question: “Did Democrats Just Create a Path for Trump to Take California?” That is the title of his article and the reason he speculates this is because of a bill that recently went into effect that will likely kill millions of jobs in the state, as it disallows businesses contracting people without counting them as full-on employees (something that would absolutely kill ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, which rely on contracting drivers as opposed to hiring them to a position). Vespa also quotes a writer at Red State who said the following:
“I’m about to make a purely anecdotal statement, so take it for what it’s worth but… I’ve never seen so many Californians willing and eager to cross the aisle to vote Republican as I have in the last two months… Do they want to vote for the California GOP? No. Do they want to vote for Trump? No. That being said, more than anything they want to be heard and since the California Democrats are willfully ignoring their voices, many feel a GOP vote will be the only way to make an impact. They’ll go back to voting for the party they love and are loyal to, but they’re for sure not going back to it if they don’t have jobs or are forced to move out of state because of AB5 (the aforementioned job-killing bill).”
“The stakes are real and critical and I’ve never seen so many people throwing aside political divisions for a unified cause. We vote with our wallets and Newsom and Gonzalez (the author of AB5) have taken the last dollars out of our wallets and then thumbed their noses at us for complaining about it.”
The Red State writer, Kira Davis, also says that Trump can benefit a lot by simply pointing out the atrocious bill and the impact it’s having on Californians and the state’s economy.
The fact that Trump got more votes than the “two” socialist candidates still in the race (by Super Tuesday, that is) is also significant. Again, I don’t think California will go to Trump and it’s largely a pipe dream that it will, but it’s worth pointing this out: even in California, plenty of people like Trump.
In any case, let’s now look at Alabama, where Trump won BIG. On the Democrat side, Biden won 286,630 votes, Sanders got 75,326, Bloomberg got 52,844 and Warren got 26,125. As previously stated, President Trump won 708,883 votes, far exceeding the vote count of all other Democrats (though it’s Alabama, so that’s to be expected).
In Arkansas, Biden got 92,584 votes, Sanders got 51,117, Bloomberg got 38,212 and Warren got 22,860. President Trump got 237,826 by comparison.
In Texas, Biden got 661,231 votes, Bernie got 591,952, Bloomberg got 289,340 and Warren got 227,422. President Trump got 1,883,799. As with Alabama, it’s rather expected for Trump to win big in Texas, but again, this is a massive number, particularly when comparing it to Obama.
What we find in all but two states (Massachusetts and Vermont) is that Trump, despite him being an incumbent and running basically unopposed (as the other GOP primary opponents are basically nobodies), is drawing in massive turnout for himself in what are essentially guaranteed races. There is just about zero chance for any GOP primary challenger to defeat Trump in any of these states, and yet, the President receives far bigger turnouts in many of these places than the current Democrat candidates and his predecessors.
This is the big story coming out of Super Tuesday that practically no one will cover: Trump’s base keeps growing and growing. His re-election, while not an absolute guarantee, is looking more and more likely as time goes on and as people keep dropping out.
The only people left in the Democrat race are two white men who are, at minimum, 77 years of age, with one of them believing the Soviet Union was good and that breadlines were a good thing for people, and the other believing his wife is his sister and that Super Tuesday was Super Thursday (among a slew of other gaffes that are equal parts funny and sad). Elizabeth Warren is basically a non-factor (UPDATE: She's out) and Bloomberg has already dropped out after wasting half a billion dollars annoying us in ads and winning less than 60 total delegates.
The fact that Biden might be the nominee will also annoy the heck out of Bernie supporters who might actually burn Milwaukee to the ground and essentially gift Trump with his second term come November, be it by directly voting for him (or simply against the Democrat establishment) or just not voting at all, leaving Joe with less voters.
The Democrats don’t stand a chance in 2020, do they? (Note that this is not an invitation to not go out to vote on November 3rd, 2020. Complacency on the part of an overly cocky Trump base would sink him, so make sure to go out to vote so that the Left truly doesn’t have any chance to win at all).
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Left often tries to argue that they are the clear majority in this country (despite another poll showing the very few number of liberals in this country) and that what they think about and the way they think about those things are what the vast majority of Americans think about and the way they think about them. For example, they believe the vast majority of Americans want to get rid of the 2nd amendment and often lose nights of sleep because of this “issue” in our Constitution. That is, of course, nowhere close to true, but this is how the Left operates.
So it is no surprise that they would believe that the vast majority of Americans are deeply concerned with the state of our planet and what we are “doing” to it. They believe that if their candidates run on the “issue” of climate change, that they are practically guaranteed to win most seats and most states in the country because oh, so many people must be just as concerned about it as they are and are willing to rid themselves of all their rights and freedoms to give to the government so that they can “come up with a solution” to the “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” or whatever else these commies are calling it.
However, reality is VERY far from what the Left says it is (not that that should come as a surprise to anyone. When has the Left ever been right about anything?).
According to a Pew Research Center poll, 44% of Americans told Pew that “dealing with global climate change” should be a top priority for Trump and Congress to tackle. On its own, that seems like a fairly decent number of people and like what I was saying up to this point was entirely wrong, right? Well, it would appear as such on its own, but definitely not when compared to other issues.
You see, Pew Research Center gives surveyors a list of issues or topics to rank on a priority scale.
Here are the other topics that Pew gave to surveyors:
“Dealing with global climate change” squeezes in between improving roads, bridges and public transport and dealing with global trade issues, at 44%. That puts it in 17th place out of 18 total places for it to go.
Of course, there is also the “protecting the environment” issue much higher, but that’s not strictly a Leftist thing. People on both sides of the aisle want to protect the environment because we know that we can affect it greatly. What we can’t affect is the weather, which is what the Left and the native Americans of old believe(d). What we can’t affect is our GLOBAL climate. We can affect our local ecosystems, environment, etc. Just look at the literal craphole San Francisco and L.A. are turning into. But we can’t affect the global climate and people understand that other things ought to be prioritized more.
By the way, I say “people” on both sides of the aisle to mostly talk about everyday Americans. It’s clear that the Left, as in the elected Left and those aspiring to run for office, do not care one wit about the environment, given the state of some of their cities. The fact the EPA hasn’t sued San Francisco for its roads made of crap is astonishing. But everyday Americans do tend to care for the environment and do not wish to harm it, regardless of what side of the political aisle they are on. So the fact that “protecting the environment” is higher than some of the other ones isn’t necessarily good news for the Left since they don’t own that talking point, at least not anymore (and again, they aren’t doing much of that anyway).
People want to take care of the environment, with some even naively believing they can do something about global climate change, but most wouldn’t go to the extremes the Left wants to take us to. What this poll shows us is just how much more the economy and other topics are to the average person than turning this country into a socialist one to deal with a nonexistent threat.
Virtually every elected Democrat in this day and age wants to foundationally change the very system that has made America great in order to “fight climate change”. It’s stupid both in terms of effectiveness (it wouldn’t do a darn thing to help “fight” climate change and it would likely hurt the environment far more than help it, given their insane obsession over getting rid of CO2, which is essential for all life on Earth) and in terms of it being a selling point, as we can clearly see.
The VAST majority of Americans don’t want to turn this country into a socialist hellhole just to try to “fight” something that isn’t even a man-made issue at all. People want to prioritize the economic well-being of this country because when the country does well financially, so do most people. They want to focus on reducing healthcare costs because, after a decade of Obamacare, it’s clearly not been the “affordable care” that has been promised, not even a little.
They want to fix the education system because kids are learning useless things (I have yet to put into use my knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem or the fact that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell in any real life situation) that they largely won’t have to use in the real world unless they specifically go into professions that require such knowledge (knowing the aforementioned things I learned in school WOULD have been useful if I decided to become a mathematician or a scientist, but I am neither of those things and never will be).
They want to make sure that this country is safe from terrorism, want to ensure that Social Security doesn’t screw people, want to fix the costly Medicare system, want to help the poor and the needy (very Biblical, even if they do not recognize it), protect the environment, deal with a broken and abused immigration system that makes it far too easy for people to get in and many, many other things.
That’s not to say that they don’t care about climate change at all. But they definitely do not want to sacrifice things like economic well-being and security, which they would have to (even if not told) if they were to sign on to the radical Leftist ideals of the Green New Deal and other socialist schemes to strip people of their rights and their liberties.
This poll tells us that running on a campaign of “we’re going to save the planet” is not a big-time seller for most people. Running on the things Trump tends to run on, like economic well-being, is more important to the average voter than “let’s start eating roaches to protect the Earth”.
And by the way, this isn’t the only year that this line item has ranked so low on that poll. The poll began to ask about global warming in 2007, when it also ranked second-to-last. From 2008 to 2013, it ranked dead last, in 2014 and 2015, it climbed back up to second-to-last and in 2016, when Pew began to refer to it as “global climate change”, the topic did the best it ever has at an impressive… third-to-last. And in the years following, it has ranked second-to-last time and again.
This has never been a major selling point for Democrats, no matter what they believe, no matter what kind of climate puppet they prop up, no matter how many hours Leftist cable news spend on talking about how “we are killing our planet” and how it’s “literally on fire”. People are concerned (more than they should be, given the farce that this entire thing is), but won’t go full-on communist, giving up everything they own for “the better good”, and that isn’t a good thing for Democrats, especially going into 2020.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As if the Left didn’t have enough things to be perpetually angry about, this week has been particularly tough for Democrats, and even though I am not supposed to allow my heart to rejoice when my enemy stumbles, I am going to be at least a teensy-weensy bit happy about recent developments, particularly as some are coupled with rather good news.
Let us begin with Garfield’s least favorite day: Monday, when the Democrats began the apparently semester-long process of running an Iowa caucus and declaring a winner.
Even though a winner should have been declared by that night (and the Republicans had no trouble at all calling the caucus in favor of Trump), it’s actually been a few days and the last thing I remember about it was someone saying that the process was about 97% done, with Bernie and Buttigieg being extremely close to one another, but with Buttigieg having a slight lead (so far). What I would like to point out is how extremely dubious this process has been.
It definitely didn’t help that the Democrats used a voting app developed by a company literally called Shadow Inc., which was founded by a woman whose husband is a senior strategist for Pete Buttigieg, who is coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally) one of the two most likely winners of this caucus. The app, reportedly, was a complete mess with not showing everyone who was on the ballot all too clearly, leading some people to have to vote for someone else instead of their favored candidate.
Now, to be fair to the company that literally sounds like they would be an evil corporation fighting Superman, the app wasn’t the only malfunction for the Democrats throughout the night. According to the Daily Caller: “An Iowa precinct secretary was just on the phone with CNN, got off hold with the Iowa Democratic Party to report his results, and was hung up on [by the DNC].”
So there were technical errors and human errors at play. Unsurprisingly, this led to Bernie supporters, who knew that going into the caucus their preferred candidate had a massive lead over everyone else, to get angry and storm out of the caucus, according to Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner.
He wrote: “So Sanders had more than twice as much support as any other candidate at [a particular precinct], but due to some savvy dealmaking and complicated delegate math, they ended up in a 5-way tie for delegates, one apiece. And they [Bernie supporters] were not happy.”
Of course, this led to much mockery online, with many on the Right making the point that “if Democrats can’t properly operate their own caucus and it’s this much of a mess, how can they be trusted to run our healthcare?” and things like that. Of course, given the shadiness of the entire thing, and given how blatantly obvious the DNC is in trying to keep Bernie from winning the nomination, I think it has less to do with horrendous incompetence and more to do with trying to rig things in their favor, delaying results until they are either more favorable to them or until Sanders comes out as the winner (which is the most likely scenario but Buttigieg still has a bit of a lead in delegate count, so it could go either way 97% in) but he has next to no momentum going into the New Hampshire caucus next week.
Now, I must say that I do not have any tangible evidence of such rigging of things. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to be THIS incompetent; it is within the realm of possibility. So I won’t say that they definitely are trying to rig this thing, but one cannot blame me for at least being suspicious of the way things are being handled. Their desire to keep Bernie away from the nomination is no real secret. That, paired with the fact they are employing a voting app run by someone with ties to one particular candidate, and that particular candidate is being reported as leading in delegate numbers, possibly rendering him the winner of the caucus and you can’t fault people for thinking the fix is in.
Biden is an extremely weak candidate who only looks weaker and weaker as time goes on, so Mayor Pete might be the establishment’s replacement for Biden.
Regardless, I’ve spoken plenty about this particular catastrophe for the Democrats and I wish to move on. Final thoughts, though: I cannot help but laugh at either the blatant rigging of the Democrats’ own primaries or the mind-numbing incompetence of an entire political party.
Now, let’s move on to something I’ve previously covered, and actually wrote about yesterday, so I don’t have too much to say about this: the President’s State of the Union address.
As I mentioned in my previous article, Trump destroyed the Democrats by simply pointing out his great success as POTUS and excoriated them for the dangerous socialist policies they wish to espouse such as the “sanctuary city” policies, the Medicare-for-All plan that will kick hundreds of millions of Americans off of their current health insurance, among other things.
He highlighted the booming economy that we are experiencing, and on that particular night, helped a little girl to receive a scholarship so that she could go to the school of her choice instead of a garbage government school, applauded the services of a man tragically killed by Soleimani while also celebrating the terrorist’s death (as well as al-Baghdadi’s death), and overall made the Democrats look like petty fools, with the queen of the fools sitting just behind him and to the left of him, when she decided to tear the speech in half (which could get her a criminal referral, but she’s a Democrat and they get away with whatever they want, so don’t expect anything to come out of this).
The State of the Union address highlighted the failures of the previous administration and accentuated the failures of the current Democrats by virtue of having Trump being the one to deliver the address. They failed to beat him in 2016; failed to get rid of him for 3 years, running on crap like the Russia hoax, campaign finance “violations”, a bad past with a porn star and most recently, with a Ukraine phone call that is out there for anyone to read and see that no criminal activity or intent was present in what the Democrats are calling a “constitutional crisis” (though they call literally everything Trump does a “constitutional crisis” so that term is quickly losing its luster); and were one night away from experiencing yet another failure: failing to remove him from office.
Which brings me to what happened on Wednesday, with the Senate vote to acquit the President of the United States for life.
This one, unfortunately, is not quite as bad as I wish it would’ve been for the Democrats thanks to the actions of a single man: Pierre Delecto aka Mitt Romney.
From the beginning of the impeachment sham, it was clear Trump was not going to be convicted of anything and that became more apparent as time went on. The Democrats and the media, however, were somehow convinced that there was a real possibility that Trump would be convicted. Some polls attempted to show that “a majority” of Americans wanted to remove Trump (but there was clear oversampling of Democrats in those polls, so they were fake news) and the media, with those dirty polls, deluded themselves into believing Republicans would be scared to the point of removing Trump to save their own careers.
But as time went on, even their own polls began to betray them, with people losing interest in impeachment and less people wanting to remove (again, according to their own polls). The Democrats failed to make any sort of convincing argument, particularly because the transcripts were released and available for anyone to see (though I suspect the Democrats didn’t expect Trump to release the transcripts, so that threw a wrench into their plans) and because the whistleblower, the guy who supposedly kickstarted this whole process, was never called in despite being the initial accuser of the President.
Of course, the Democrats COULDN’T call in the whistleblower because he had obvious ties to Adam Schiff and because it was made clear that the IG, an Obama holdover, changed the rules for whistleblowing from having to be a first-hand source to allowing for second-hand information to be considered valid whistleblowing, so calling in the whistleblower would’ve left the Democrats very vulnerable. All of these things made the impeachment even more shady and made it tougher for the obviously corrupt Democrats to try and convince people that Trump was the corrupt one.
Now, there is far more to the impeachment topic, such as the Democrats blocking the Republicans from calling in their own witnesses, Democrats only being able to bring up two extremely vague articles of impeachment and passing them both in an entirely partisan manner (with votes against impeachment having been bipartisan), Nancy holding the articles to try and get McConnell to do what she wants in a Senate trial (which was foolish from the start, but is about on par with this woman’s intelligence) and the Democrats wanting more witnesses despite the fact that they had every opportunity to call in as many witnesses as they wanted in the House if they didn’t rush impeachment like they did just so they could impeach Trump by Christmas. The entire thing was an exercise in futility and marred in corruption and stupidity, but that is the Democrat Party’s MO, isn’t it?
As a result of all the tomfoolery going on here, the Senate voted to acquit the President for life on both charges, with the first article of impeachment – abuse of power – receiving a 52-48 vote (with Pierre being the only Republican voting to convict, making him the first idiot senator ever to convict a president of his own party) and with the second article of impeachment – obstruction of Congress – receiving a 53-47 vote, falling WAY short of the 67 votes the Democrats needed to remove Trump by 19 votes and 20 votes respectively.
So the Democrats made themselves look like idiots at best and cheaters at worst on Monday, petty and anti-American fools on Tuesday and pathetic failures on Wednesday who are, in all likelihood, going to suffer major losses come November as a result of this impeachment sham (coupled with the fact that not a single Democrat presidential candidate has any hope of beating Trump, especially if the Democrats steal the nomination away from Bernie again, thus angering his base once again).
The only week that will be worse than this one for Democrats will be the week following Trump’s re-election.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The day after the hilariously blatant attempt by the Democrat Party to steal the nomination away from Bernie (again) in Iowa, President Donald J. Trump delivered his third State of the Union address, highlighting the multiple achievements his administration has accomplished and warning of the dangers of the Left’s insane ideologies in a number of ways (and, by the way, according to a CBS News poll, 97% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats and 82% of Independents all approved of the speech, which are the same numbers as 2019's SOTU).
The President highlighted the successes his administration has had on the economy, seeing a roaring economy taking place across our nation:
“The unemployment rate for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans has reached the lowest levels in history… African-American youth unemployment has reached an all-time low. African-American poverty has declined to the lowest rate ever recorded… The veteran unemployment rate dropped to a record low… The unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low.”
Of course, the Democrats could not be bothered to stand up and cheer this because they do not care about the welfare of this country if they are not the ones that can boast about it. During the Obama years, we experienced a period of economic stagnation and were even told by the POTUS himself that the best days were behind us and that that was the “new normal”. The American people refused to buy that b.s., which is one of the biggest reasons Trump got elected, and as with many other promises, Trump has kept his promise to make America’s economy great again.
The period of economic stagnation seems like ages ago and we are witnessing an economy that is roaring like never before, what with great annual and monthly GDPs, unemployment rates continuing to reach new lows across multiple demographics, consumer confidence being at decades’ high, the stock market reaching new heights, people’s wages going up especially for those in lower-income households and 7 million new jobs being created, with 3.5 million working-age people joining the workforce. The fact that Democrats refused to stand up and applaud this, even going so far as to deny that these things are happening (which at this point is like trying to deny the force of gravity) says plenty about them but we’re not done showing the pettiness and disgusting nature of the Democrats.
President Trump also made a number of surprise moves during the speech.
For instance, he awarded a scholarship to a fourth-grade girl to send her to a school of her choice, as opposed to forcing her to go to a failed government school: “Janiyah, I am pleased to inform you that your long wait is over. I can proudly announce tonight that an Opportunity Scholarship has become available, it is going to you, and you will soon be heading to the school of your choice.”
Because this highlighted the potential for school choice for children, the Democrats refused to stand up and applaud this. They are more than happy to send that young girl to a crappy school so that she would be indoctrinated and given such poor education that she becomes totally dependent on the government for assistance. They would be more than happy to ruin the girl’s life forever if it meant she was a slave to the government and the Democrat Party.
The President also reunited an Army wife with her husband in a moment that people tend to love seeing online.
He also awarded conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his great contributions to this country. El Rushbo had recently announced on his show that he had “advanced lung cancer” and that he would, unfortunately, miss a few days every now and again to receive treatment. Having been on the radio for over 30 years, Rush is basically a trailblazer for conservative media now-a-days. Without him, much of the fake news media that had a monopoly on information before the 1990s would likely still have such a monopoly and conservative shows and publications would likely not be where they are today without him, so as a result, the President honored him with the highest civilian honor he can bestow, and it is much deserved.
The President also noted that in attendance was Venezuela’s legitimate President, Juan Guaido, who is still trying to wrestle away the power that the current illegitimate ruler, Nicolas Maduro, possesses. While this is not likely to do much in the short-term, it goes to show that the President of the United States recognizes the legitimacy of Guaido as President of Venezuela. That can go a long way.
The President also honored one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, celebrating his bravery and noting that newly-promoted General Charles McGee’s own grandson wished to follow in his grandpa’s footsteps, dreaming of joining the newly-formed Space Force. It’s worth noting that almost everyone in attendance applauded General McGee except for three nasty people: Ilhan “Married My Brother” Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI).
Other things the Democrats refused to applaud, you might ask (if you didn’t watch the SOTU)?
They, as mentioned previously, didn’t applaud the roaring economy and the record-low unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanics, women, the disabled, young workers, etc. because they do not actually care about minorities and never have.
They didn’t applaud the simple fact that America should not be a sanctuary for criminals, but for the law-abiding, when President Trump attacked “sanctuary city” policies that protect law-breakers at the cost of the safety of innocent civilians.
They didn’t applaud (though I don’t blame them) when Trump disparaged them for trying to take away the healthcare of 180 million Americans by forcing a socialist healthcare system.
They didn’t applaud the fact that USMCA was passed and signed into law, which honestly had me a tad confused. They had been trying to take away credit from Trump regarding this, but allowed him to take all the credit by not applauding its passage, even though it received great bipartisan support. I fully expected them to applaud to try and congratulate themselves a little and take away Trump’s credit, but by not doing that, they allowed Trump to receive all the credit for it. Make this political mistake #3 for them, after not applauding the strength of the union and the great economic numbers.
They also didn’t applaud the miraculous survival of an extremely premature baby, who was born at 21 weeks of pregnancy and is four years old today. They likely didn’t applaud this because they would’ve loved the chance to sacrifice that baby to Baal and were denied that opportunity because of pro-life policies. The President also made sure to mention the importance of protecting unborn babies because there is no denying the life that is inside the womb. Democrats are at the point where they will support abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, despite the fact that 1) the babies in the womb are ALIVE and 2) babies tend to be viable at around the time that that girl was born, which is around four months. For most of the pregnancy, a baby is viable and can live outside the womb (with varying levels of difficulty), and yet, demonic Democrats do not believe such people to be alive.
Given the chance, they would’ve added that little girl to the number of victims of this ongoing holocaust.
However, all the pettiness the Democrats displayed during the speech is dwarfed by the simple act of astounding pettiness that Nancy Pelosi demonstrated once the speech was over: ripping the speech in half, as seen in the picture at the top.
The woman is completely petty for a number of reasons. First of all, she is a massive failure and she knows it. She tried to get impeachment done as soon as possible because Trump was such a “danger” to the country that he needed to be promptly impeached in what can only be described as a bastardized process and a complete sham, calling in as many Democrat “witnesses” who witnessed nothing and could only give fifth-hand accounts at best and pure speculation and opinion at worst (and that’s what they usually did) while denying Republicans the chance to call on any of their own witnesses, only to hold off on delivering the TWO articles of impeachment that were so laughably vague even some of the Democrats’ witnesses were baffled by it because she couldn’t control Mitch McConnell and have her dream impeachment trial in the Senate.
What’s more, the only reason she launched and rushed this impeachment like this is because she felt pressured by far-Left idiots like the Squad, who all employ a system of redistribution of brain cells amongst one another, to do something when there was no way in Hell this was going to end well for the Democrats. She’s a failure not only as a politician, despite her multi-decade career experience, but as a “leader” too, since no one believes she is in charge of the Democrat House.
She failed to get bipartisan support for impeachment, only receiving bipartisan support AGAINST impeachment; failed to get her way in a Senate trial because she had no leverage at any point in her little one-woman stand-off with McConnell; failed to draw any type of support in favor of impeachment from the American people; failed to draw much INTEREST in what is usually considered a massive deal in American politics; and has now failed to get rid of President Trump (though snakes like Romney certainly tried to please her). She knew how big of a screw-up she was, which is part of the reason she refused to properly introduce the President to the House Chamber. She rationalizes that she tore up the speech for two reasons: one, Trump didn’t shake her hand (which is laughable because he also didn’t shake Pence’s hand but regardless of whether or not he did, she did not deserve the least bit of respect from the guy she was trying to oust) and two, that the speech didn’t contain any “truth” in it, despite the fact that the speech was entirely supported by facts.
Like I said, it’s undeniable that we have a roaring economy. The stats are right there. And even if you do want to contest these facts, there is no denying the facts presented regarding the people Trump celebrated. Ripping the speech in half and saying it was filled with lies greatly disrespects the Tuskegee airman and his grandson, the Army husband recently reunited with his family, the widow and family of a soldier killed by Soleimani, the President of Venezuela’s legitimacy and the miraculous life of a baby born at 21 weeks.
Even if you delude yourself to the point of contesting reality, you come off as extremely disrespectful by ripping the speech in half and saying that none of the pages held any truth to them.
Make this mistake #4 and the biggest one of the night for Democrats. The pettiness and ugliness of the Democrat Party at hearing great news of an America made great again was characterized by one simple action. That action also gives Republicans plenty more ammunition (of which they have a surplus at this point) to attack the Democrats for.
Maybe Nancy can try and excuse her actions and say that she mistook the speech for Iowa Caucus votes for Bernie?
“A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I have said multiple times in the past, I believe President Donald Trump will be re-elected this November for a variety of reasons (though with the warning that people should not be complacent here and go out to vote, while also reminding people that a lot can happen between now and the 2020 election). From the booming economy to the weak Democrat field, there is good reason to believe Trump will be re-elected. And according to a Gallup poll, Democrats will have to combat people being generally happier with the state of this country today than by the time Barack Obama left office.
Gallup recently released a survey in which they asked people a number of questions relating to their level of satisfaction regarding any particular subject, such as the overall quality of life in America or the position of women in the nation or the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the nation.
And the numbers tell a great story for Trump and a frightening one for Democrats.
According to Gallup, the following are the issues with which Americans are broadly satisfied at the start of this new year:
ALL of these numbers, to one extent or another, should worry Democrats trying to get elected because they completely destroy any sort of argument that they can try to make.
Democrats said that Trump would make living life Hell for Americans; Americans are vastly satisfied with their overall quality of life and the ability to attain upward economic mobility through hard work. Democrats said that Trump was “weak” because he wasn’t starting any new wars against our foreign enemies (which they switched to “Trump is a warmonger” because he killed Soleimani, fully expeced that to spark WWIII, when nothing of the sort has occurred); Americans are very satisfied with the strength and preparedness of our country to protect us from foreign enemies and terrorism. Democrats said that Trump’s very election would cause the stock markets to crash and that his policies would lead to economic stagnation, if not a total collapse and recession; Americans are very satisfied with the state of the economy and “fears of recession” were only coming from partisan propaganda outlets in the fake news media. Democrats said Trump would be devastating for women; Americans are very satisfied with women’s positions today.
And perhaps one of the biggest ones: Democrats said Trump would be devastating for LGBT people in America because he’s such a “homophobe”; Americans are satisfied with the acceptance of gay people in the country. Of course, homosexuality is still a sin, but considering how often the Democrats like to accuse Trump of being a homophobe, the fact that Americans are satisfied with how gay people are treated is terrible for the Democrats.
Now, there are a slew of other issues which Americans show a great amount of dissatisfaction in. For example, “the nation’s laws or policies on guns” where 42% of people are satisfied with the way things currently are while 55% are dissatisfied with the way things currently are. However, this could mean a couple of things: either people are dissatisfied because the current gun laws/policies don’t go far enough aka they want more gun control, or people are dissatisfied because they think current gun laws/policies are too overreaching and think there should be less gun control. Conservatives and liberals both could very easily be dissatisfied with the current gun laws/policies in our nation but for two very distinct reasons and the poll does not ask a follow-up question asking if it is because they want more or less gun control.
They just ask the, at times, fairly vague question of whether or not they are satisfied with this issue and, again, there can be different reasons for a particular answer. Meanwhile, the opposite is not the case, because those who are satisfied think that the way things currently are with this level of gun control in America is satisfactory.
The same thing can be applied to the question on “The level of immigration into the country today,” where 35% are satisfied with it and 57% are dissatisfied. Leftists want more immigration to the point where it’s basically uncontrollable and conservatives want less immigration to the point where we almost have closed borders (an idea which I think people should consider, though illegal immigration levels have been declining as of late). And again, regarding the issue of “the nation’s policies regarding the abortion issue,” you find 32% satisfied with the status quo and 58% dissatisfied, with one side of the aisle being dissatisfied because they want abortion up to the point of birth and the other side being dissatisfied because killing babies in the womb is somehow legal and considered morally acceptable by people.
But regardless of that slight problem with the poll, we move on to what I believe to be the most important part of it and the worst thing for Democrats to see: the issues on which people are more satisfied today than by the time Obama left office.
Meanwhile, the overall quality of life, influence of organized religion, the nation’s energy policies, our system of government and how well it works, government regulation of businesses and industries, the size and influence of major corporations, and the moral and ethical climate have all also gone up in the last three years, though by nowhere near as much as the ones listed above, with quality of life having increased by 4 percentage points, the size and influence of major corporations increasing by 2, the moral and ethical climate increasing by 1 and the rest increasing by 3 points.
But if you would care to look back at the issues that increased by a lot over the last three years, what stands out to you? Well, to me, a lot of things stand out, such as the state of the economy, though I was not surprised by that at all. What I am specifically talking about here are two things: the state of race relations and the position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation.
And here I thought Trump was supposed to be a horrifying racist who will put black people back in chains, segregate everything and send us back to pre-emancipation eras of racial relations. Well, that’s what the Democrats were telling everyone, at least. Perhaps the single most preferred word for the Left to throw at Trump (and his supporters) is the word “racist”. They love calling him that despite not having any real reason to do so. Hollywood, despite having known him for decades, hadn’t called Trump a racist even once until he decided to run for POTUS as a Republican. All Democrats, when they hear Trump and his supporters wanting a wall at the southern border, can’t help but react with scorn and hatred, believing that desire to be for racist reasons rather than security ones.
Trump was supposed to be the “racist-in-chief”, as many on the Left (at least on Twitter) choose to call him, and yet, racial relations are better off today than they were when THE FIRST BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT was in office. Race relations, by the end of Obama’s tenure, were awful. And no one was surprised by that, considering how often Obama would support black thugs or criminals when they were, unfortunately, shot and killed by police officers. Showing just about no remorse when police officers in Dallas were shot and killed by a BLM supporter also didn’t help race relations any.
But Donald Trump, the guy most often smeared as a racist by the true racists in the Democrat Party, has helped race relations over the last three years. And not by a little bit, but by a lot. A 14% increase in it is quite good. Granted, the bar was already fairly low by the time Trump entered office, but again, he was smeared as a racist and the Left assured people that he would be awful for blacks and minorities in general. And yet, the complete opposite is true, as is often the case when we are talking about Democrats predicting the future.
Democrats predict we will die in 10 years? A load of crap. Al Gore has been predicting we’d all die in 10 years for 30 years. Democrats predict the economy will collapse with a Trump presidency? The opposite wound up happening. The funny thing is that some Hollywood celebrities and Leftists are trying to tell people “we are screwed” if Trump wins AGAIN.
Just about every prediction the Left has made about anything, let alone about Donald Trump, has been utterly wrong. The economy has gotten better, the country is getting stronger, our enemies fear us again, our “allies” know they can’t take advantage of us anymore, and race relations are better today than when Obama left office. These are all things that should terrify and demoralize the Democrats, particularly if those numbers stay about the same, or even improve, by the time of the election.
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
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.
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.
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...