Since the days of slavery, the Democrat has always hated the idea of black people having guns. After all, if their slaves had guns, they could very easily revolt against them and that would be disastrous for them. That kind of mentality is still around, having expanded to all minorities in general, and for much the same reasons: they want a permanent underclass of voters and such a class cannot be allowed to defend itself against their masters.
 
So it’s not surprising, really, when The Violence Policy Center (VPC) sets its sights on the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA and the gun industry as a whole, charging them with “racism” for “targeting” blacks and Latinos as being first-time gun owners.
 
The VPC released a report saying: “In its marketing efforts to communities of color, the gun industry frequently focuses on the self-defense use of firearms, despite the fact that guns are rarely used to stop crimes or kill criminals and are far more likely to be used in homicides, suicides, or fatal unintentional shootings.”
 
Oh, boy, we just began and already, we can smell the bullcrap.
 
First of all, it’s a fact that guns ARE used for self-defense more than for committing crimes. According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, “The best estimates of DGUs (defensive gun use)…, even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative… estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.”
 
So the VPC is absolutely LYING about self-defense use of guns. But the other thing that they do here is they move the goalposts from just defensive use of guns to outright stopping crimes and KILLING the criminals.
 
Depending on the context of the defensive use of the gun, chances are that some sort of crime is being stopped or prevented. DGUs can vary from preventing rape, murder, assault, etc. to stopping a shooter or a mugger or a robber. So one’s definition of “stopping a crime” can be rather varied. But in a way, using guns to stop any of these constitutes as stopping a crime, so the VPC is outright wrong about that.
 
Secondly, the argument of “guns are rarely used to kill the criminals” is irrelevant because DGUs are not about killing the criminal but about SELF-DEFENSE as the name suggests. If one is capable of brandishing a firearm and scaring away a criminal, that counts as a DGU. The gun doesn’t have to be discharged. Furthermore, killing the criminal is not exactly every gun owner’s desire, even if they are put into a position where they have to use their gun.
 
Kleck also noted that “Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs.”
 
So the argument of “criminals are rarely killed by gun owners” is a red-herring argument. Killing the criminal is not a gun-owner’s primary intention when using a gun for self-defense or for the defense of another person.
 
But do you see how they try to “debate”? They don’t argue the issues, they position things so that they are in their favor, using favorable language. “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals” as though that was their purpose.
 
So you have to be able to fight back against that b.s. because their entire line of arguments are based on erroneous premises.
 
At any rate, the report continued: “Recognizing that Blacks and Latinos are already disproportionately impacted by lethal gun violence, these efforts can only increase death and injury in these communities.” See what I mean by erroneous premises basing their line of argumentation? “Guns are bad and selling guns to minorities is, therefore, bad.” Never mind the fact that that is wrong and that it only makes sense to market and sell to people who are MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE.
 
The guns are already in the hands of the criminals, so what sense does it make to keep the innocent from being able to defend themselves? The Left doesn’t answer that because, again, their entire premise rests on the “fact” that guns aren’t helpful for those who wield them defensively.
 
They don’t ask themselves if their underlying premise is wrong at any capacity. It’s like atheists trying to figure out the reason as to why people are so religious based on their faulty premise of “since God doesn’t exist, why is there religion?” They preface their question with a massive presupposition that God doesn’t exist, but don’t even bother to question whether or not that presupposition is correct.
 
That’s what the VPC was doing and what the Left often does. Truly, they make for awful scientists, in this way. Instead of asking if their hypothesis is correct and trying to find the data that proves it isn’t, they assume that it is correct and try to find the data that proves that it is.
 
It’s part of the reason they are so insistent on the idea that there are a bajillion genders.
 
So they assume that guns are pretty exclusively used for crimes and can only hurt gun owners (as though they were sentient beings), do not question that basic premise, and go on to charge that those whom are willing to market and sell guns to minorities do so in order to bring harm upon them, when that is far from the truth.
 
They make charges like the following: “Along with the hope of increased gun sales, a corollary goal of this effort is to turn more Blacks and Latinos, who historically support gun violence prevention measures, into pro-gun advocates for future political battles.”
 
So they charge that the self-defense marketing is not the true intention of the gun industry (without evidence) and they only target minorities for financial and political profit. Because black people and Latinos are incapable of holding independent thought, seemingly.
 
Again, take note of the favorable language that they use. Who wouldn’t support gun violence prevention measures? To be against that would basically mean being in favor of gun violence, right? It’s all b.s. because anyone with half a brain could understand that “gun violence prevention measures” only lead to further gun violence because that’s what gun control tends to lead to. Chicago is a city with plenty of “gun violence prevention measures” and some of the highest crime rates in the country. Disarming those willing to follow the law doesn’t lead to less unlawful acts – matter of fact, it only leads to more of them.
 
And as far as “turning them pro-gun” goes, 1) what’s wrong with wanting people to be more willing to protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights? And 2) Planned Parenthood basically does the same thing by installing abortion clinics in black and Latino neighborhoods, so how is that any different? PP specifically targets and markets to minorities to brainwash them into thinking that their babies are burdens not too dissimilar to cancerous tumors so that they go into those clinics and get an abortion.
 
Planned Parenthood is in the business of ethnic cleansing and no one bats an eye, but if the gun industry wants minorities to be able to protect themselves, that is an outrage? We can see, clearly, where the priorities of the Left lie: only they get to be protected by guns and have the ability to live, while the “weeds” must be rid of in the womb and, if necessary, on the streets.
 
There is good reason I call the Left evil and there is good reason I consider them to be black people’s number one enemy (as well as the enemy of just about everyone who is sane).
 
They want to kill minorities in the womb and leave them unable to protect themselves out of the womb.
 
Will the Left’s racism never end?
 
Micah 2:1
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”

Do you know what the definition of colonialism is? It is the policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation’s maintaining or extending its control over other countries. And despite how supposedly anti-colonialist the Left claims to be, they effectively do this by demanding that other nations and cultures adhere to their own beliefs and practices, even as doing so would destroy centuries of tradition.
 
This is what the white liberal of today is trying to do with the honestly disgusting term “Latinx” to try and make the Spanish language more “gender-inclusive”, or “gender-neutral.”
 
The Spanish language is gendered and offers two possible genders for words. A Hispanic male, if you don’t use the term “Hispanic,” can also be referred to as “Latino.” A Hispanic female can also be referred to as “Latina.” The “o” and “a” endings on those words, as well as on many others, indicates the gender of the things being referred to (even if they are inanimate objects like “la banana”, which is not female in itself, but the female “la” is being used to refer to the banana).
 
This is how Spanish words work and we Latinos (referring to Hispanics in general, and this includes Latinas in the same way that “Man” would include both men and women) like it this way.
 
At least, that is what a recent Pew Research Survey showed. According to Pew, despite the common use of the term “Latinx” by news and entertainment outlets, as well as corporations, local governments and universities, a considerable majority of Hispanics have actually never even heard of the term and a very miniscule amount of those who have prefer to use it.
 
According to the survey, 76% of Hispanic respondents have not heard of the term “Latinx,” despite its frequent use amongst the entities that I just described.
 
The funniest part, however, is that of the 23% of Hispanics who have heard of the term, only 3% actually use it.
 
And while this was not part of the survey, I am willing to bet that the 3% of Hispanics who use the term “Latinx” to describe themselves are both liberals and 1/1024th Hispanic. I’m only half joking here, as I really don’t doubt that the idiotas who prefer to use the white liberal term “Latinx” are liberals themselves who are sinverguenzas (shameless, for my non-Spanish-speaking audience, though even that translation takes away the harshness of the word).
 
At any rate, returning to Pew, interestingly enough, they say the following: “The emergence of Latinx coincides with a global movement to introduce gender-neutral nouns and pronouns into many languages whose grammar has traditionally used male or female constructions.”
 
So, basically, Pew is admitting, though without using the words, that the people who use and prefer that term to describe Hispanics (white liberals) are conducting the textbook definition of colonialism, trying to impose their beliefs on the culture and language of an entirely different set of people, who have had this sort of culture and language for centuries.
 
The white liberal is conducting a global effort to change the Spanish language into something that THEY deem acceptable and right. And then they go and attack colonialism, despite doing the exact same thing to others. Sinverguenzas, white liberals are.
 
Returning to the poll, Pew also reports that Google searches for the term “Latinx” have increased since 2016, but are far behind other terms like “Latina,” “Latino,” and “Hispanic.”
 
This really should come as no surprise to anyone, considering it’s a pretty new term. The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” have been around for decades.
 
What is also unsurprising is the fact that there are notable critics of the term, with “some critics point[ing] to its origins among U.S. English speakers, saying it ignores the Spanish language and its gendered form,” and “others see Latinx as a gender- and LGBTQ-inclusive term, reflecting a broader movement within the U.S. around gender identity.”
 
Yep, that is the biggest reason for the term, and perhaps the only reason. Despite the fact that you would think “Hispanic” was an inclusive term anyway, the white liberals, ever their thirst for control and dominion over other people going unsatiated, have now been attempting to normalize another “gender-inclusive” term in order to neutralize gendered language and eliminate any semblance of an idea of there only being two genders.
 
The Spanish language, as it is currently constructed, is problematic to the woke white liberal, so it must be reworked entirely to “accommodate” for those who suffer from gender dysphoria and claim to not be either male or female. One would normally ask “what right do these sanctimonious, self-serving and self-righteous white liberals have to dictate what people of a different culture ought to refer to themselves as or what a different language ought to be like?”, but you know that the Left does not care for other people’s rights.
 
They didn’t care for black people’s rights and only pretend to do so now. They never cared for Hispanic people’s rights, only insofar as to giving illegal immigrants the right to vote so that they can remain in power forever. They never cared for women’s rights, only insofar as they can hide behind that idea to push for abortion and free contraception so that generations of women will strictly think about themselves as sexual objects and stray further and further from God and morality altogether. They never cared for gay people’s rights, only insofar as aligning themselves with them can get them a political voting bloc that was not previously there, and also so that the sin of homosexuality can be considered “moral” and “right”, again, to get people to stray further from God.
 
What reason should any of us have to expect the Left to respect the Spanish language?
 
Not that it appears to even be working. While the vast majority of Hispanics have never heard of the term, that is bound to change eventually. The biggest number of Hispanics who have heard of the term tend to be young Hispanics who go to college (which makes sense, since I have already stated that colleges use the term frequently). Eventually, almost all of Hispanics will have heard of the term.
 
What is most encouraging, however, is that of those who have heard of the term, a miniscule amount of them actually would use it to refer to themselves.
 
The self-righteous, hypocritical white liberal will refer to me as “Latinx”, but I never will refer to myself as that, that’s for sure, and neither will the vast majority of fellow Latinos.
 
While I hardly ever (if at all) have displayed much pride in my Hispanic heritage (only because the Latin American countries I come from are socialistic and I hate that aspect of them) and while I focus far more on my Christianity and find that to be my primary identity – as a citizen of Heaven as opposed to a citizen of the United States or, at one time, a citizen of Argentina – I can’t help but get ticked off at the Left’s shameless colonialist pursuit of changing the Spanish language because it has aspects that are politically incorrect to their Satanic ideology.
 
The Spanish language is gendered, in part, BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS. This is a scientific truth that has gone by the wayside in Leftist circles, so any aspect of the modern world which still alludes to the idea of binary gender must be culled and reworked. Their sense of entitlement knows no bounds if they go so far as to demand an entire culture change the way IT SPEAKS to accommodate for a miniscule, but politically-important-for-the-Left, portion of society.
 
Hispanics tend to value culture and tradition, so I doubt this will really catch on with most Hispanics, at least provided that most Hispanics are not indoctrinated in colleges and universities.
 
This is yet another reason as to why the current educational system in this country must be completely reformed, with colleges and universities that teach and endorse communism being stripped of their endowments and no longer publicly funded.
 
The Left infects everything it touches, no exceptions.
 
Proverbs 25:26
“Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.”

I often find that the people who are most offended by racist things aren’t people that belong to the race that is being targeted, but white people who white knight around and claim to be offended on the part of an “oppressed” minority. For example, almost no one outside the United States has any issue calling the Coronavirus “Wuhan Virus”. The only people outside the U.S. who say that calling it that is “racist” is the Chinese government that royally screwed everything up and is trying to absolve themselves from any blame or responsibility. But aside from that, I’ve only seen Leftist white people get offended by that name, not the people of Wuhan or the citizens of China.
 
Similarly, Leftist white people (though not all) tend to prefer “politically correct” language, such as referring to Hispanics as “Latinx”, a term that, as both a Hispanic and as one who does not give a darn about political correctness because I see it for the communist censorship tactic that it is, I thoroughly loathe. And according to a recent Politico poll, I am far from the only Hispanic that is not fond of that ridiculous (and frankly racist, which I will explain in a moment) term.
 
According to Politico’s Marc Caputo, in a survey of 800 Hispanic DEMOCRAT voters (so it’s not even Independent or Republican Hispanics), 69% prefer the term “Hispanic”, 23% prefer “Latino”, 9% cite they have no preference and only 1% say they prefer the Leftist, gender-less term “Latinx”.
 
This, as I said, is not surprising. The Spanish language is heavily reliant on gender. Words like “el” and “la” are used to precede a word that is determined to be either masculine or feminine, respectively. For example, “el Rey” means “the king”, while “la Reina” means “the queen”. Even for things that do not necessarily have a gender in itself, like a shoe, have a gender in Spanish, as we call it “el zapato”. “La comida” refers to “the food”, “el burrito” refers to “the burrito”, “la biblioteca” refers to the library, etc. So it’s natural for us to have terms like “Latino” and “Latina” to refer to a Hispanic male or a Hispanic female, respectively.
 
For the Left white knights to come in and say that those two terms are “sexist” and “not inclusive” and that the term “Latinx” should instead be adopted spits in the face of the Spanish language and those who use it (and this is the racist part, since the Left declares themselves “protectors” of Hispanics in doing this, when they come off as nothing but “burros”).
 
Again, that poll was from Hispanic DEMOCRATS. Even Hispanic Democrats say that it’s dumb to use that term and that they prefer alternatives. Not that it matters to actual Democrats, of course. Despite the fact that they are not Hispanic and the fact that Hispanics don’t like the term, failed presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have opted to exclusively use that term, with the former having had a campaign shirt that read: “Latinx for Warren”.
 
To their credit, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders don’t tend to use that term, but I suspect it’s only a matter of time until they are forced to use it by a “woke” Leftist base and Democrat Party that has no understanding of real life, narcissistically believing their way to be the only way.
 
I mean, an entire dictionary was coerced into adding that word and even declaring it their “word of the year” in 2018. It’s not a word and it never will be a word. Latinos LOATHE that word and it only shows how out of touch these Leftists are with real people. Not to mention their outright racism, as they believe they know better than us regarding what is “good” for us in terms of OUR OWN LANGUAGE AND HOW WE USE IT.
 
Far more Leftist white people use the false term “Latinx” than do actual Hispanics. And, speaking of Hispanics, why even use the term “Latinx” when Hispanic IS ALREADY GENDERLESS?! A “Hispanic” can refer to both men and women of Latin origin. A “Latino” does the same in some contexts, such as referring to “Latino” voters, but even if you want to pretend to be “progressive” and “woke” and “inclusive”, why not just use the term “Hispanic”? It both serves the “genderless” quota, because apparently, anything that is gendered is offensive in this day and age and can “harm” someone (seriously, I’ve seen someone use the word “Germxn” to refer to the language of Germany just because it had “man” in it and it offended them) and it’s popular among Latino voters, at least Latino Democrats, so there is no harm in using it.
 
The term “Latinx” is just an attempt by these “ultra-woke” idiots to pretend to be inclusive and open-minded and all that garbage. It serves no other purpose than to allow for Leftist white people who have never experienced a shred of adversity to feel good about themselves and pretend they are this generation’s Martin Luther King Jr., only in the form of a white person. It’s a selfish desire to pretend they are doing something meaningful and that there is as much injustice in the world as there was in the past, even though that is exceedingly untrue.
 
Such people read of the trials and tribulations of people in the past, of the almost heroic peaceful activism of MLK Jr, Malcolm X, Gandhi, etc., people who actually faced hardships in their lives, and wish to be remembered in a similar way. But since the troubles of the past are largely no longer around, such desires cannot be accomplished, so new troubles are created to pretend to fight. For example, the entire “climate activism” idiocy we see today. There is no evidence that suggests we are responsible for a warming or cooling climate, and yet, people feel the need to “come together” to “achieve something greater than ourselves” in order to “save the planet”.
 
It’s faux-scientific and utterly fictional lunacy, but people feel like they need to matter. In a culture that doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible, worth has to come from somewhere, and people find it in this idiotic activism, regardless of whether or not it’s actually good for people in the long-run (it isn’t, as it’s a tool for global communism).
 
And so, fictitious “struggles” of Hispanics are brought to the forefront of people who have no actual hardships to fight against and no actual struggles to thrive over, so that they might pretend to be an “ally” for us. It’s disingenuous and it’s insulting. Gendered language is not an issue to the vast majority of Latinos. It’s a fundamental part of our language. To suggest that it must be changed, particularly from the people who have no actual adversity to tackle, is racist and insulting.
 
Not that I expect anything less from these people. Racism and bigotry are staples of the Left, have been for ages and continue to be to this day. Often enough, we find that it’s the Left that creates the problems and adversities past generations have had to overcome, and yet, the try to take credit for victory when no such credit is due to them in the least. It’s the Left that fought for slavery. It’s the Left that fought for continued segregation. It’s the Left that is now demanding HISPANICS change our own language to be more “inclusive”.
 
The Left is absolutely horrible and they show that each and every day of our lives.
 
Isaiah 48:22
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”

It’s one thing to ask people in the United States if they think illegal immigrants ought to be deported or allowed to stay here, but it’s an entirely different thing to ask people in Mexico if they think illegal immigrants from Central America making their way to the U.S. but end up settling in Mexico (either permanently or until they are allowed to enter the U.S.) should be deported or allowed to stay in Mexico. And as a recent Washington Post poll finds, a vast majority want these people out of Mexico eventually.
 
The Washington Post/Reforma poll asked people: “What should Mexico do with the migrants from Central America that cross through the country trying to reach the United States? Give them residency in Mexico, give them temporary residency while the United States decides if it will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?”
 
Before I tell you what the numbers show, let me point something out about the question. Notice how they don’t mention in what fashion these illegals enter the country? Often times, people from Central America hoping to enter the United States enter not just our country illegally, but the countries that are on the way was well, such as Mexico. Even by Mexican standards, these people are undocumented and are not there legally, but the WaPo doesn’t want to paint them as a people that ought not be there. These aren’t “illegal immigrants” just “migrants” in their minds. That attempts to erase the legal aspects of the entire endeavor and make it about “poor people hoping for a better life” rather than people breaking the laws of a nation to illegally enter and remain in a country they will economically take advantage of.
 
But in any case, let’s get down to the actual numbers of the poll. According to the poll, only 7% said that Mexico should give these illegals residency in their country. 33% said they would be fine giving them temporary residence in Mexico and an incredible 55% said they wanted these illegals deported out of the country.
 
So 55% of Mexicans want illegals deported ASAP and 33% want them gone eventually, making that 88% of Mexicans that want these illegals gone at one point or another. Keep in mind, this is a sample size of 1200 respondents, so not a small size by any means.
 
Furthermore, the poll asked: “With which of these phrases do you agree the most? The migrants strengthen our country with their work and skills or the migrants are a burden on our country because they take jobs and receive benefits that should belong to Mexicans.” 20% of respondents agreed with the first statement, about migrants (illegals) strengthening the country through their work and skills (don’t make me laugh) while 64% agreed with the second statement about migrants (illegals) being a burden.
 
So 88% of Mexicans want these illegals gone sooner or later and 64% of Mexicans think these illegal immigrants are a burden to Mexico. I distinctly remember asking this when Mexicans protested against illegals back in November of last year, but I might as well repeat myself: is the media going to call Mexicans racist now?
 
Considering they did not say a darn thing about the Mexicans saying the caravans were an invasion and agreeing with Trump, I highly doubt they will say much of anything about this.
 
The Post themselves had to admit their disappointment in the findings of their survey: “Those findings defy the perception that Mexico – a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances – is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”
 
I would like to say something along the lines of “well, Mexicans don’t want invaders going into their country. What a shocker,” but polls going as far back as even just last year show us a shift between then and now. According to a Pew Research Center poll from early 2018, 57% of Mexicans said that immigrants made their country stronger, with 37% saying immigrants were a burden. That’s a 27-point jump for those who say immigrants are a burden and a 37-point drop in those who say immigrants strengthened their country.
 
I don’t honestly know what led these Mexicans to have such a major change in mind about illegals in the span of a single year, but it might be in part to changing asylum rules in the U.S. (though that’s very recent and the survey was conducted July 9-14, so there’s a bit of an overlap) that force more illegals to remain in Mexico for longer periods of time.
 
What’s more, a poll from last month by Mexican newspaper “El Universal” said that since October of last year, more Mexicans began to support stricter immigration enforcement to keep illegals from entering the country. 49% of Mexicans said tougher immigration was necessary back in October. That number now sits at 61%.
 
So more and more Mexicans are beginning to get tired of the illegal immigrants that enter their country, as well they should. Granted, many of them probably would like for those illegals to go into the U.S., just as long as they aren’t in Mexico, but still. They ought to understand how much of a burden illegal immigration can be on a country, and I think they are beginning to understand this with the major influx of illegal immigrants flooding their country to try and get to ours.
 
Still, this, alongside my November article discussing the protests and my multiple articles surrounding the topic, ought to be proof enough that illegal immigration and the desire to manage and impede illegal immigration is not a matter of race, but of rule of law and maintaining our country.
 
Tackling illegal immigration is not a “white supremacist” endeavor, otherwise they would have to call the vast majority of Mexicans “white supremacists” which is utterly ludicrous. As I’ve said time and time again, the desire to build a wall and mitigate immigration is not an effort to “make America white again”. I’m not white but I still support Trump, the Wall and the idea of maintaining the American culture, which is at risk from both illegal immigrants (and legal immigrants that refuse to assimilate into the American culture) and the bigoted Left who hates this country to their very bones.
 
And while I’m certain there will be those on the Left who will insist you don’t have to be white to be a “white supremacist” (which should be antithetical to the Jesse Jackson belief that minorities can’t be racist, but they’ll contradict themselves if they feel it benefits them) and will in turn attempt to call me a “white supremacist” for insisting that we protect the country from foreign invaders who wish to turn this country into something it isn’t, I will only laugh at the miserable morons that make such assertions - much like I laugh at those who insist Trump colluded with Russia and will call me Russian names if I defend him (one literally called me Vlad for saying that Mueller did not find collusion, which is a factual statement).
 
The reason they make these assertions is because they completely ignore logic. Of course someone who defends this country isn’t a white supremacist. But that doesn’t matter because the Left has demonized this country so much and insists it’s as bad as it is because it’s so white that defending it is tantamount to Hitlerian rhetoric. It’s nonsense, but these people couldn’t care less. They care about emotions and their emotions don’t let them think logically.
 
They see things like men get paid more than women, get pissed, and presume misogyny without caring about the facts presented to them. And once said facts are presented, they only get more pissed and begin to berate you and call you a sexist yourself.
 
They see things like an ICE facility and compare it to a concentration camp because a moron like AOC made that comparison, and as a result, one of them gets pissed off enough to try and attack it using Molotov cocktails and gets killed as a result, thinking he was being a hero and “fighting Nazis” when all he was doing is commit a terrorist attack. These people don’t think for themselves, and are led by others who don’t think for themselves either and will use emotion as a driving force for their actions.
 
Mass migration, be it legal or illegal, changes a country’s entire culture. I fully believe Europe will become a Muslim continent because of their insistence on bringing in Syrian “refugees”. In turn, those “refugees” demand European countries change their system to accommodate them. And if America continues bringing in more and more immigrants, especially in mass migration attempts, the culture of this country will also be fundamentally changed forever.
 
That is not a racist statement to make, but a logical one. Latin America has a vastly different culture from our own. Even within Latin American countries, there are different cultures. I can tell you for sure that the culture of Mexico and the culture of Argentina are very different from each other. Granted, as a kid, it was easier for me to adjust to a new culture, but the adjustment still needed to be made.
 
If Mexicans are to retain their culture, they have to give the boot to those illegal immigrants and have the legal ones assimilate to their culture. Similarly, we must do the same.
 
But as it stands, I am glad to see such an incredible shift in sentiment towards illegals from Mexicans themselves. The WaPo mentions a perception of how Mexico sympathizes with illegals because many Mexicans illegally immigrate into the U.S. and have done so historically, but it seems things are changing, and maybe for the better.
 
We just need to follow suit with Mexico (not something I ever expected to say or write) and insist we enforce the immigration laws we already have in place; insist that we not allow for states and cities to aid and abet criminals by making themselves “sanctuaries” for the law-breakers and ultimately deport as many illegals as we possibly can (and for those who will mock Trump for not deporting as many illegals as Obama did, let me remind you that Obama didn’t have over half of Washington D.C. keeping him from performing those duties of his office).
 
Exodus 12:49
“There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Have you ever found yourself in a situation in which you were hit on the head and felt like you might have lost brain cells as a result? Regardless of the way in which you hit your head, chances are, you still have more brain cells than the entire Democrat field and those who watched the Democrat debates after they were over.
 
That’s how embarrassingly stupid the first Democrat debate was, which is what we will mostly be focusing on. Although, I don’t know why I was expecting anything else from them.
 
Let’s begin with Señor Robert Francis O’Rourke when he somehow managed to avoid answering a question relating to taxes in two different languages.
 
Early on in the debate, moderator Savannah Guthrie asked O’Rourke: “Some Democrats want marginal, individual tax rate of 70% of the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year. Would you support that, and if not, what would be your top individual rate?”
 
To which Robert responded: “This economy has got to work for everyone, and right now, we know that it isn’t. And it’s gonna take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.” That was what he said in English, which 1) entirely avoided the question and 2) was a complete lie, considering we are in an economic boom and minorities are experiencing record-low unemployment rates that have been steady during Trump’s administration thus far.
 
Then, despite being limited on time, Robert said this in Spanish (and Spanish that wasn’t even entirely grammatically correct): “We need to include every person in the success of this economy. But if we want to do that, we have to include every person in our democracy. Every vote needs representation and every voice needs to be heard.”
 
Again, entirely avoiding the question, but in a uniquely dumb manner that even liberal late night hosts made fun of.
 
Let me remind you that the question asked had to do with taxing the rich extreme rates. What reason does Robert have to reply (without even answering the question at all) in both English and Spanish? It’s quite clear to anyone even half-way paying attention that the guy was simply pandering to the Hispanic vote by basically saying: “Hey, look, I can speak Spanish too!” The only thing that would’ve completed that hysterical moment was if he was holding Uno cards while he was saying that.
 
And while there may be others who disagree with me on this, I find this not only embarrassing for the guy but also kind of insulting. As a Hispanic person, I’m not going to be wooed by someone who happens to know some Spanish (again, he didn’t even speak it perfectly well either). I’m especially not going to be wooed by someone who manages to avoid answering a question in two different languages.
 
Granted, I never had any plans to vote for O’Rourke at any capacity and fully plan on voting for President Trump come the 2020 election, but this was outright asinine.
 
But perhaps not quite as asinine as Julian Castro saying that biological men who transition to (looking) female ought to have the right to an abortion.
 
For some context, NBC News’ Lester Holt had asked the actual Hispanic (and actual lunatic): “Secretary Castro, this one is for you. All of you on stage support a woman’s right to an abortion. You all support some version of a government health care option. Would your plan cover abortion Mr. Secretary?”
 
Castro replied: “Yes, it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman – or let’s not also forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion.”
 
Another kind of pandering, particularly because he stopped to also include transgender people. And like O’Rourke’s pandering, this one also doesn’t make any sense (although it does make sense in the mind of a lunatic Leftist who is this out of touch with reality).
 
In case Secretary Castro has forgotten his 3rd grade science class, MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT! It doesn’t matter if a man with gender dysphoria goes through the process of mutilating his body to look like a woman’s, he still cannot biologically get pregnant because he lacks the reproductive equipment to do so. A man may say he is a woman and may even transition into having the body of a woman, but that does not include the transfer of a womb into the new body and the removal of the previous reproductive system.
 
Men can’t get pregnant, and as a result, can also not get an abortion. It literally makes zero sense for Castro to even say this, or for anyone to say this for that matter. And these people think Trump isn’t fit to serve? This guy literally thinks men can get pregnant! Either that or he’s simply trying to pander to out-of-their-minds politically-correct morons in the audience who will say: “Yaaaas! Slay, queen!” entirely unironically. I honestly hope it’s the latter because I would hate for someone that mentally deranged to be within 10 feet of any position of power as grand as the Presidency.
 
Overall, the Democrat debates have proven that the entire field of Democrat candidates is filled with shameless panderers at best and outright deranged people at worst. None of them have proven to mainstream America that they are in any way sane, and that goes beyond the ridiculous (and dangerous) desire to confiscate every gun in America and allow for literally unrestricted abortions. While those two issues demonstrate how out of touch they are with America, it’s the shameless pandering and the open lunacy that tells us what they are all about.
 
Even if I had been a registered Democrat, voted for Hillary in 2016 and despised Trump, I would seriously doubt I would be willing to support any of these people. And I think there are plenty of people out there who think similarly. I mean, O’Rourke is polling at roughly 3%, Castro at less than 1 and everyone else is equally as stupid or deranged.
 
Sure, neither of the two will likely be the Democrat nominee to challenge Trump, but if this is what the Left has to offer, they really do need the tech giants to come in and rig the elections for them because otherwise, Trump would likely win all but one state ala Ronald Reagan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

This is far from the first time I have written about Hispanics supporting Donald Trump at any capacity. Given that I, myself, am Hispanic, I can at least fairly decently relate with credibility why it is that Hispanics are so willing to support the President. But to entitled Leftist elitists who view minorities as voting mules, Trump being supported by as many Hispanics as previous Republican candidates/presidents makes absolutely zero sense.
 
Take David Drucker from the Washington Examiner for example. While I wouldn’t necessarily call him a Leftist per se (what I have seen from him doesn’t paint him with the same brush as pretty much everyone else on the MSM), he does appear surprised at the fact that Trump is rather popular with Hispanics. In fact, the title of his article I will be quoting from is: “Hispanics stick with Trump despite tough border stance”.
 
Now, to me, I find that rather hilarious. “Despite” tough border stance? Try BECAUSE of tough border stance.
 
Keep in mind that exit polls back in 2016 showed that Trump garnered 28% of the Hispanic vote, which is admittedly lower than it is today. 28% is around the support other Republicans have received from the Hispanic population. Mitt Romney back in 2012 got 27% of the Hispanic vote.
 
So while you can attribute a strong economy causing his support to grow (something I do as well), there was still a decent portion of the Hispanic population that voted for Trump despite the fact he hadn’t done anything for the economy just yet (naturally, having not been POTUS at the time). Also keep in mind that his entire campaign centered around illegal immigration and building a wall at the southern border.
 
So you would think people would be able to figure out that a tough border stance is not detrimental for Trump when it comes to Hispanics. WE ARE TOUGH ON THE BORDER TOO!
 
But here’s what Drucker said specifically in his rather short article. He starts by noting that Trump’s initial remarks upon launching his campaign “mortified” Republicans, establishment and otherwise, fearing that nominating Trump, let alone electing him, would doom the GOP with the Hispanics. He also notes that it hasn’t quite worked out that way, given he has support around 30%, give or take depending on the poll.
 
Even Daniel Garza, a Koch brothers minion and former Bush official said: “[Trump] starts in a much better place for reelection than when he launched his 2016 campaign. One would think immigration would be a major anchor for him, but he’s turned it into at least a push.” Even Drucker notes that Garza’s comments are quite the turnaround from what he said back in 2015, shortly after Trump launched his campaign: “His positions are indefensible. I would actually rise up against him.”
 
In any case, Drucker then continues by citing a YouGov poll that shows Trump’s job approval rating among Hispanics sits around 29% and on immigration, which is, in Drucker’s mind “presumably a tougher issue for the president with this demographic”, is at 30%. Drucker then notes that 30% is rather usual for Republicans, as around 30% of Hispanics tend to be “die-hard Republicans”, as Joe Heck, a former Nevada congressman who usually was popular with Hispanics noted.
 
And then Drucker supposedly warns Trump and conservatives that roughly 30% is “dangerously low for competitive contests”, saying that “it can leave Republicans too reliant on the white vote, the largest segment of the voting population nationally but one that is declining.”
 
But wait, didn’t Trump get 28% in 2016? And wasn’t Hillary supposed to absolutely cream Trump? Virtually every poll out there said that Hillary was going to win, so if Trump ended up winning anyway, doesn’t that mean that 30% is at least decent enough for someone like Trump?
 
What’s more, we are seeing a strong economy today with the lowest unemployment rates for Hispanics (and other demographics, but the focus is on Hispanics) that we’ve ever recorded, so Trump has that going for himself, particularly with Hispanics.
 
But then, Drucker quotes Albert Morales, a senior political director for Latino Decisions (admittedly a group I have never heard of), that typically studies Hispanic vote patterns and other things. Morales said that, according to recent internal polling, 80% of Hispanics intend to vote in 2020, as though that is a massive warning for Trump.
 
“That figure ‘is usually around 50%,’ Morales said. Republicans hope a booming economy will supersede Hispanics’ lingering reservations about Trump over his crackdown on illegal immigration and aggressive tactics to secure the border…”
 
Ok, what? This article, up to this point, was talking about how despite Trump’s tough border stance, Hispanics still support him. And now, it’s likely going to be a problem for him that he’s hoping will be superseded by a strong economy? Did Drucker start writing an entirely different article in the middle of talking about how Hispanics don’t actually distance themselves from Trump because of his strong border stance?
 
I honestly don’t understand the logic here. Back in 2016, Trump garnered a fair bit of the Hispanic vote, a typical number for Republicans to garner. Despite the fact Trump centered his entire campaign around the idea of Making America Great Again (which is somehow supposed to turn off Hispanics because apparently we can’t be happy for America and hope it does well) and securing the southern border with a great and beautiful wall, these same ideas are likely going to sink him in his reelection bid with Hispanics?
 
What’s more, Drucker went on to say: “Morales was doubtful (about Trump superseding supposed Hispanic reservation about Trump’s tough border stance, which we just established is not really there), explaining that Hispanic anger at the president’s policies evident in the midterm elections has not dissipated. ‘I think that question needs to be posed to the 40 Republicans who lost their [House] seats,’ Morales said concerning whether the economy would be enough. ‘That’s what they were relying on last cycle, but it just wasn’t enough,’ Morales said.”
 
Are these people seriously forgetting that almost all of the seats the Republicans lost in the midterms was because the incumbents conveniently retired and incumbents tend to get reelected? Had fewer, or even none of the Republicans who retired last year not decided to retire and run again, it’s entirely certain Republicans would’ve lost far less seats and maybe would’ve even retained a majority in the House, even if it was a slimmer one.
 
And let’s not forget the rather suspicious manner in which some Democrats wound up winning their races, conveniently “finding” a whole bunch of extra ballots in the trunks of people’s cars that conveniently went to the Democrat candidate and counting those ballots WELL after the polls closed and some elections should’ve been decided. (Seriously, I highly doubt the elections in Orange County, CA, which originally went to the Republicans but after some of this crap went to Democrats, were in any way legitimate).
 
The only part about that “80% of Hispanics” that intend to vote in 2020 that scares me is the high chance some of them are illegal immigrants who intend to illegally vote for the Democrats that will allow them to stay where they are and will even go as far as to allow them sanctuary even if they commit heinous crimes against Americans.
 
But as far as Trump’s reelection efforts go, there really is no good reason for him to lose, both the election and Hispanic support. There are Hispanics such as myself who HATE the fact the Left is allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border without any sort of punishment or care for the rule of law. Legal immigrants like my family hate the fact Democrats give ILLEGALS special treatment despite whatever they may do.
 
Seriously, do you remember when the trial for Kate Steinle wrapped up? Where Kate Steinle’s murderer was acquitted of all charges except for the illegal possession of a firearm? And do you remember the trial for George Zimmerman?
 
When a delinquent African American kid is tragically killed because a half-Hispanic and half-white man defended himself, people were basically up in arms when Zimmerman was found not guilty. But when a poor white girl gets shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported FIVE TIMES in a case that should’ve at the very least found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter is acquitted of almost all charges, no one bats an eyelash.
 
Illegals essentially get this message from the Democrat Party: do whatever the hell you want, even kill people, because we are going to do everything in our power to keep you here in the States and protected from law enforcement.
 
No worse form of injustice or corruption could be found than in this. Kate Steinle’s murderer gets off scot free because he’s a precious little illegal immigrant who did nothing wrong and Kate was simply dumb enough to be walking on a walkway like a weirdo.
 
Legal immigrants such as myself go through the process the right way, waiting our time, paying our dues, etc. and illegals just get to walk past the border with zero documentation and can get away with anything and the Democrats allow this? Gee, I wonder why so many Hispanics support Trump.
 
Not that I’m asking that legal immigrants get any special treatment either. Far be it from me, a conservative, to wish to receive something from the government. What I am asking for, however, is that we observe and respect the rule of law.
 
If there is one thing I disagree with Trump about is when he said something along the lines that most illegal immigrants are criminals, coming here and raping or dealing drugs or killing, etc. Most of them are not criminals. ALL OF THEM ARE! It’s in the name ILLEGAL immigrant. Even if you want to use the stupid PC version of it, “undocumented immigrant”, that still poses a legality problem. You can’t be here WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION!
 
So for those who are here illegally, I want them out. They have no RIGHT to be here. If they wish to come back in, they have to go through the proper, LEGAL process, in which case, they absolutely would have the right to be here. But until that happens, they need to get the hell out of this country.
 
And if Trump can manage to do that (of course, he’ll need the help of typically spineless Republicans, so it’s a tough road for him), then he’d garner even more Hispanic support. Because we don’t support him “despite” his tough immigration stance. We support him PRECISELY BECAUSE of his tough immigration stance. Those that fail to understand that are nothing but arrogant Leftist snobby elitists who have a seriously annoying superiority complex and an ironic “holier than thou” mindset who think they are better than the people they claim to “support”.
 
Exodus 12:49
“There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

I don’t think it should come as a surprise to any of you that the reasons Latinos support Trump are the same reasons that other people in different demographics support Trump: we want to Make America Great Again.
 
But the reason Latinos like myself arrive to this reason for supporting Trump might be different than others.
 
What do I mean? Well, unlike many who are born in this country, Latinos that immigrate here know first-hand what it’s like to live outside of the U.S.
 
One thing that has always annoyed me about liberals, particularly those who have always lived in America, is that they have absolutely no idea just how good they have it here.
 
America affords its people rights and freedoms that are simply alien in many other countries. For as much as I dislike the media, they at least have the freedom, at least legally, to report on just about anything they want and to say whatever they want. If the media wants to trash the government, it’s their constitutional right to do so. Such a right is not afforded to the media in many other places. In many other countries, the media is owned by the government. Meaning that whatever the government wants printed is what gets printed and whatever they don’t want printed never sees the light of day.
 
For example, back in 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands that belonged to the British. Now, I was not alive at that time, so what I’m sharing with you is simply what my parents have told me since they lived through it.
 
During the war, which only lasted a couple of months, the Argentinian media would report that Argentinian soldiers were advancing an X amount of distance or were capturing X amount of territory. After a couple of months, Argentina lost the war.
 
Now, if the media was reporting that Argentina was virtually winning the war through capturing a number of territories or advancing a certain amount of distance, why would Argentina come to lose the war? Well, the media was only allowed to “report” on supposedly good things.
 
Again, I wasn’t alive at that time, so I’m not 100% certain as to what happened exactly, but from what I can tell, either Argentina was losing a lot more ground than they were gaining, or they were making up the stories about how much ground they were gaining over the British. But either way, that’s an indication that the Argentinian government was only allowing the media to report on things the government wanted, even if it was not entirely or remotely true.
 
Were the U.S. to be involved in such a war, the media would immediately talk about how the U.S. is invading some poor land, and it would be allowed to report on whatever it wanted. Of course, that itself comes with certain things such as the media would probably not want to mention whether or not the U.S. is doing well. If anything, they’d probably hope the U.S. was losing the war and they would shove that down people’s throats. If the U.S. were winning, the media would largely ignore that, as they have been in their reporting of how much we’ve been destroying ISIS.
 
But that’s just one aspect that is different between America and many other countries, particularly Latin American countries.
 
Generally speaking, America is still one of the freest countries in the world. The Left is doing damage to it, but we still are very free comparatively speaking. That freedom is largely what Trump wants to fight for and is part of his desire and fight to Make America Great Again.
 
The Associated Press recently published an article titled: “Latino support for GOP steady despite Trump immigration talk”. I won’t get too much into it, apart from some details such as the fact that 32% of Latinos voted for Republican candidates in 2018.
 
The main reason I bring this up is due to the ironic fallacy of the title. The author, Nicholas Riccardi, writes that Latinos still support Trump despite what he says about immigration. He’s got that completely wrong.
 
One of the biggest reasons Latinos support Trump is BECAUSE of his ILLEGAL immigration talk. Let’s not get the two confused.
 
I’ve said multiple times in the past that legal immigrants tend not to like illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants such as myself have had to wait our time and paid our dues in order to be given the legal right to enter the country and remain in it, with a clear and good path to citizenship that is largely earned.
 
So you can imagine how ticked off we’d be if someone else got to enter the country illegally, without having to pay anything, and the Democrats ENCOURAGE such a behavior to the point where illegal immigrant caravans spring up with the supposed desire to seek asylum but ultimately plan to simply invade the country.
 
Yeah, we don’t like that situation any more than anyone else who is sane, so we support Trump and his desire to build a wall at the southern border.
 
And that actually brings me to another reason why Latinos support Trump: Democrats and the entire Left are precisely what many Latinos are looking to get away from.
 
What do many Latinos want to get away from? Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and any other –ism that leads to the overwhelming expansion of the government and its influence in people’s lives.
 
And when they get here, what do they find? People like Bernie Sanders and AOC who spew the exact same garbage they’ve been hearing all their lives, only in a different language.
 
However, there exists one big problem with all of this that is beyond my own comprehension: many Latinos still vote for those exact same people they were trying to get away from.
 
And that’s simply something completely illogical to me. Why would Latinos seek to escape socialist hellholes, enter one of the freest countries in the world, and then vote (legally or illegally, because we allow such a thing to happen for some reason) for people who are virtually no different from the dictators that they escaped from?
 
It simply makes no actual sense to me, but that’s reality. Although, frankly, what makes even less sense to me is people in America seeing they have a good thing going for themselves with capitalism and wanting to turn to the very socialist system that has sunk every other country it ever infected.
 
Of course, that’s another whole can of worms that I won’t get into in this article.
 
My main point here is that one of the biggest reasons Latinos support Trump is because he is the exact OPPOSITE of people like Castro, Maduro, and other socialist dictators.
 
Trump’s policies and rhetoric are aimed at Making America Great Again. For many Latinos, that means truly escaping the clutches of socialism and entering a country that is prosperous, bountiful, growing and mighty.
 
My direct family and I long have dreamt of coming to the United States of America. To search for economic freedom and to be prosperous, living a good life. Unfortunately, we arrived while Obama was President and the Left is engaged in a culture war that seeks to eradicate any sense of capitalism from this country, by force if they have to (*ahem* Antifa *ahem*).
 
The way that I see it, the America that we were promised is not the America that we arrived in. The Left has grown the government an awful lot and the GOP has done next to nothing to stop them. I imagine many other immigrants, Latino or not, feel the same way. And that’s yet ANOTHER reason we support Trump.
 
Trump is really the only Republican out there actually fighting back against the Left in every way that he can. The reason I love the concept of Making America Great Again is 1) I’m an American nationalist (despite the fact I’m a foreigner) and 2) I want to experience the America that was promised. The beacon of hope for the world, where we have rule of law and equal opportunity.
 
Next to no other country has that to their name, so many people gravitate towards Trump because they want to uphold those things. The Mueller investigation into Trump is indicative of the damage the Left has done to the rule of law (although you can see this sort of thing happening in the past, such as during the Enron trial and the Ted Stevens case). Investigating an individual in the effort to find a crime is not justice, it’s vendetta. It’s not what a constitutional republic does; it’s what a banana republic does.
 
I support Trump because I want to Make America Great Again, Make America Just Again, and most of all, Make America God’s Again. One can hardly ask that God bless America when we kill millions of babies every year.
 
The reason so many Latinos support Trump is because he represents the opportunity to truly ESCAPE socialism – the very socialism the Left is looking to bring upon us.
 
It’s why I, and so many others, ask God that He guide and strengthen Trump. In a previous article, I mentioned that I only rely on Trump to fight to Make America Great Again. And that’s true, but I recognize that he can’t do it by himself. Which is why every day, multiple times a day, I pray to God that He would help Trump.

​Because if God is for us, who dare be against us?
 
Romans 8:31
“What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

I’ve often held the belief, which is often proven to be true, that the Left is chock-full of racists and bigots. That just about everyone in the media focuses on the skin color or gender of a person more-so than the content of that person’s character, at least depending on the political leanings of said person. As a good example, look at the Mississippi Senate race held a couple of days ago, where the Republican candidate, Cindy Hyde-Smith defeated Democrat candidate Mike Espy. Despite the fact that she’s the first woman Mississippi has ever elected to Congress, that fact is ignored because she’s a Republican.
 
However, that is not the main focus of this article. The point I’m trying to make here is that the Left tends to look at someone’s skin-deep characteristics and nothing beyond that. They do this so often, that it appears as though it’s become second-nature to the Left to be racist. What do I mean?
 
A study from a couple of researchers from Yale and Princeton found that “over a 25-year-period, white Democratic political candidates patronized minorities by dumbing down their language so as to appear more approachable,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
The researchers analyzed words used in over 70 speeches delivered by both Democrats and Republicans over a 25-year-period, with around half of the speeches being delivered to mostly minority audiences, and being compared to speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. According to the Daily Wire: “two elements of the speech were analyzed: words related to competence and words related to warmth.”
 
“The results showed Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words speaking to minorities than when speaking to white audiences. Republican candidates did not change their discourse."
 
The researchers also tested “white participants to see how they would interact with a hypothetical or presumed-real interaction partner. Half of the time, the partner was given a name that ostensibly sounded white, such as ‘Emily’, while the rest of the time the partner received a name that sounded like a non-white, such as ‘Lakisha.’ Participants chose from a list of words, all of which had been rated for their warmth or competence, to use to send an email to the partner,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
The result was that those who skewed to the Left would make sure not to use words that would make them appear to be highly competent, while conservatives would not change their language. Cydney Dupree, one of the researchers, said that “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect. Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
 
Dupree also said, regarding finding such a pattern of behavior in Democrat politicians, that “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
 
Now, I am not really surprised to see this sort of thing being the case. I have known for a very long time now that the Left is largely racist and bigoted. Regardless of someone’s skin color, they are like this. I don’t think I have to point to each and every instance of hatred that stems from the Left on the basis of skin color, because if I did, I would be here all week. And even though their new favorite target for their incessant need to be openly racist is white people, they still hold true to their old Democrat values of bigotry against minorities.
 
And this much is clear if, throughout three decades, they’ve been shown to display a particular pattern of speech that differs depending on the type of audience they have. One such instance, though not necessarily regarding race, is when either Hillary or Bill Clinton would hold some speech or rally in a Southern state, such as their home state of Arkansas, and would use a more exaggerated and noticeable southern drawl when speaking to southerners than they otherwise would, say, while in New York or Washington D.C.
 
Obama was similar, to some extent. Whenever there were more black people with him, he would act more like a black guy than he would otherwise.
 
So this entire thing comes down partly to racism, but also to an even larger problem with the Left that they would never admit to being a problem: they think they are better than everyone else around them.
 
Barack Obama often tends to speak and just look at people with his chin really high up and like he’s looking down at someone. He is the prime example of someone who downright looks down on those around him and thinks himself better than everyone else.
 
It’s because of this largely baseless belief that they are better and smarter than everyone else that they instinctively end up dumbing things down to those whom they believe are inferior to them: minorities.
 
The reason Kanye West said that there still was slavery going on in the U.S. (paraphrasing, of course) is that black people, through their vote, still largely are slaves to the Left. Slaves of thought. It’s the reason I continue to call the Democrat Party a slave plantation of thought. Because that is largely what they are. Of course, black people are not the only slaves in such a plantation. This plantation includes anyone who does not think for themselves and agrees with the hive mind of the collective Left. There is no data, apart from man-made data, of man-made climate change? “Bull! There is consensus within the scientific community that it’s real, so it has to be!”
 
Science has long proven that males are male and females are female and there can be no alteration of that, barring some sort of chromosome-level accident? “Bollocks! Gender is fluid and you’re a hater if you say otherwise!” Don’t know why I went British for that one, but let’s continue.
 
The point is that the Left holds people’s individual thought almost for ransom. And as a result, they end up instinctively holding minorities in a lower regard. I didn’t exactly need a study to know just how racist the Left is, but it is always good to basically confirm such beliefs. The fact that this has been happening for three decades (and likely longer, but the study had to set some sort of limit) tells me the Left’s very racism, bigotry and hatred is on the genetic level.
 
I’ve said this before, but it’s in their very DNA to be this way. And given the response from one of the researchers, it appears as though she was disheartened to see the results of the study. She even went as far as to say that it was an “unpleasant surprise” to see this behavior. The good news is that she at least was capable of recognizing that this could easily be seen as patronizing behavior (because it is). Though she still tried to insist that it was well-intended, the proof is in the pudding: the Left treats minorities like idiots, while conservatives treat minorities like they would anyone else.
 
Here’s hoping such a revelation leads to these researchers to understand that there is a deeply-rooted problem within the Left that is not likely to ever change.
 
Genesis 6:5
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Back in August, I wrote an article that detailed the fact that only 25% of Democrats would support abolishing ICE after the illegal immigration debate heated up once again and somehow was hurting Trump to a degree.
 
While I do not necessarily have any news surrounding Democrats’ support of abolishing ICE, I do bring some news surrounding Latino voters’ views on ICE. And they don’t look good for Democrats.
 
A recently released poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo found that, of 300 interviewees who were registered Latino voters, 36% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports abolishing ICE compared to 33% who would be more likely to vote for such a candidate.
 
26% said there was “no difference” either way and 5% said they were “not sure”.
 
Now, the poll doesn’t just focus on this one item. The poll is actually quite extensive, for example:
 

• When asked if they approve or disapprove of Trump’s performance as POTUS, 26% approved while 65% disapproved (this, however, is challenged by a Harvard/Harris poll that had Trump’s approval with Hispanics at 47%, but that poll was taken in late July, early August, but that would be a horrific drop-off for Trump that I do not think is correct, but I digress)

• When asked if they had a positive or negative view of the GOP, 22% held a positive view, 45% held a negative view, while 43% held a positive view of the Democrat Party and 20% held a negative view of the Dems.

 

• When asked if they had a positive or negative view of Obama, 67% held a positive view while only 14% held a negative one.

 
But perhaps most interestingly, though not necessarily shocking:
 

• When asked if they had a positive or negative view of Capitalism, 41% held a positive view, with only 21% holding a negative view.

• When asked if they had a positive or negative view of Socialism, 21% held a positive view while 42% held a negative view.

 
So we really should take everything in this poll with a grain of salt. This is a relatively small sample size, with only 300 registered Latino voters being surveyed.
 
But there are a number of things to take away from all this. Primarily, while the vast majority of Latino voters understand socialism and despise it, they do not recognize it in Democrats… somehow. Despite the fact that they do not like socialism at all, they still seemingly hold a negative view towards Trump and the GOP and would prefer the Democrats to win in November.
 
So what this poll tells me is that there is a severe lack of knowledge out there for Latinos. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying Latinos are stupid. Ignorance and idiocy are two different things. People can cease being ignorant simply through learning and acquiring knowledge. However, people can’t cease being stupid even with knowledge.
 
It’s clear to me that these Latino voters understand that Capitalism is good and Socialism is evil. They are not stupid. However, they are ignorant if they still prefer Democrats over Trump and the GOP. They do not recognize that the Democrats would only bring about the same kind of Socialism that they despise and some might even had fled from.
 
Regardless, that is a topic for another time. Right now, I want to focus on the fact that even within the same poll that has Latinos adamantly rejecting Trump and the GOP, Latinos also report being less likely to vote for someone who would support abolishing ICE.
 
It’s this sort of inconsistency that leads me to take everything this poll says with a grain of salt, even the things that are positive in my eyes. Latinos prefer Obama over Trump, the Dems over the GOP, all the while supporting Capitalism over Socialism and keeping ICE over abolishing it?
 
Taking aside the fact that this is a poll from an MSM source, this poll does not seem very consistent and might not be entirely credible.
 
However, the fact that the poll shows Latinos favoring ICE and being less likely to vote for a candidate that would support abolishing it speaks volumes, regardless of credibility.
 
I can understand if the poll wanted to skew certain things to make Trump and the GOP look bad and like they are about to get kicked out of Washington. I don’t know how many of the registered Latino voters are Democrats compared to Republicans. But I would be naïve to assume there is no overlap of Democrat voters in an MSM poll. However, I won’t speculate further.
 
All I’m saying is that it is remarkable that, despite many of the other things the poll shows, the voters would prefer ICE stay than be abolished. That goes against many other things the poll indicates and the Democrats claim. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran, among other things, on the promise of abolishing ICE. Upon her upset victory over Joe Crowley, other Democrats picked up on some of the things she was saying and moved farther Left, also calling on ICE to be abolished.
 
Now, as I said at the beginning of the article, support for abolishing ICE has dropped off massively since Ocasio-Cortez’s victory even within Democrats. So perhaps I should not be so surprised that Latinos tend to have a more favorable view of the agency. But that’s not what has me intrigued. Frankly, it’s not that surprising.
 
For the most part, registered Latino voters are legal immigrants (though I don’t know if there were any illegals who were considered “registered voters” in the poll or actually are “registered voters” as illegal as that is, but I won’t speculate further on that issue… for now). Legal immigrants tend to not have positive views on illegal immigrants.
 
You see, legal immigrants go through the process the right way. They (we, since I am a legal immigrant and now proud U.S. citizen) pay what needs to be paid, wait the amount of time that needs to be waited, sign and complete all the forms that need to be signed and completed, and overall go through the extensive process of attaining legal status to immigrate and become a legal U.S. resident.
 
Illegals basically crap all over that.
 
So, when legal immigrants such as myself see what illegals are doing and the preference they receive from the Democrats, we tend to not like that. Now, I do realize the poll shows Latinos prefer Democrats over the GOP, but as I insinuated, that’s relatively questionable right now.
 
When we see a government agency properly enforcing the immigration laws we ourselves were subjected to, we tend to like that. No one should be able to come here through illegal means and those that do should immediately be considered criminals. And don’t tell me that’s harsh. If you break the law, you’re a criminal. If you break immigration law, you’re a criminal. Simple as that.

This is a view that, from what logic and seemingly data from an MSM poll, most legal immigrants share. So what has me surprised is not that registered Latino voters seemingly marginally support ICE. What has me surprised is that the MSM poll would show that.
 
Either way, I would imagine the MSM would focus more on the numbers that help reflect their narrative that a blue wave is incoming and inevitable than to focus on the fact that Latinos would be less likely to support a candidate that wants ICE abolished or the fact that Latinos tend to despise Socialism and prefer Capitalism.
 
But regardless of what the fake news media has to say, they have given me no reason to believe what they say on multiple occasions.
 
John 8:32
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store delivered straight to your inbox. All you have to do is click on the box on the right, type in your e-mail address, click on the subscribe button and you’re good to go. No money to be paid, no data to be shared apart from your e-mail address, no hassles.

I have written about this sort of thing before, but it’s significant to see a member of the MSM (New Republic contributor Adrian Carrasquillo) contributing to this conversation and calling out the Dems for taking Hispanics for granted.
 
In fact, that is almost literally the title of his article: “Democrats Are Taking Latino Voters for Granted.”
 
In the piece, Carrasquillo begins by calling out the fact that in the Florida Senatorial race between Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Bill Nelson, Rick Scott has taken the time to reach out to Hispanic voters by placing ads played during the World Cup and having a Spanish page on his website, while Nelson has done neither of these things or anything to match them. Carrasquillo writes: “Such decisions reveal a cavalier attitude toward Latino voters that isn’t just a problem for Nelson, whose race is unexpectedly tight, but for the party as a whole.”
 
Carrasquillo believes, interestingly enough, that the President’s actions toward illegal immigrants, a “botched” response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and increased deportations and separation of families at the border “should help Democrats win over Latino voters.”
 
Interestingly enough, here is where Carrasquillo makes some assumptions of his own. Carrasquillo’s point is that the Democrats are simply assuming that Hispanics will turn out to vote for them in elections and that that’s where they could be wrong due to their lack of outreach. However, Carrasquillo makes an assumption of his own: that Hispanic voters are supportive of illegal immigrants, don’t like the President’s efforts to deport the illegals, and don’t like the fact that “families” are separated at the border.
 
That is where Carrasquillo makes wrong assumptions of his own. Those of us who came to the United States legally, at least for the most part, do not appreciate illegals coming in here.
 
Here’s a short list of the things that we don’t like about illegal immigration:

1. Illegals are coming here at a far cheaper cost (smuggling must still be somewhat costly) than those of us who paid far more money and waited our designated time period to be allowed access to the country.                                                                                              
2. Illegals are coming here through unlawful means. While we abide by the law and follow each and every instruction and rule set up for us, illegals are saying “screw that” and coming here anyway.                                                                                                             
3. Despite their illegality, people in the government choose to protect them rather than prosecute them. They broke the law by merely coming here illegally. All of them are criminals at that point, by DEFINITION! And yet, they get preferential treatment over: African-Americans, Army veterans, American homeless people and even immigrants who COME HERE LEGALLY!

 
Again, I’m not asking for preferential treatment just because I came here the right way. I’m asking that you don’t reward those WHO BREAK THE LAW! How difficult is that concept to grasp?!
 
The list could be longer, by mentioning illegals stealing jobs and such, but I’ll end it there.
 
So while Carrasquillo might believe Hispanics support illegal immigrants, the truth is that those of us who came here legally simply do not support illegals. It rightly ticks us off that they are allowed to do this and it rightly ticks us off that Democrats are actively breaking the law by setting up “sanctuary cities and states” in order to protect those who should not be here.
 
Carrasquillo also notes a poll of 1,000 Latino voters that found that “more than 70% were ‘very angry’ about the separation of families at the border and about Trump calling immigrants ‘animals’.”
 
Here’s the thing: the way media portrays things for people often has some impact on polls. For example, the firestorm that happened over separation of families at the border. I personally have said that families should not be separated (though I was not “very angry” about it). However, I now understand why that policy was put in place: there are plenty of illegals who will cross the border with a child that is not their own. There are plenty of illegals who are sex slave smugglers and get children across the border. Without such a policy, it puts more children at risk. Yes, actual families were separated, but it’s not like they were never going to see each other again (though that’s how the media was portraying it).
 
And about the “animal” comments, that also has to do with media portrayal. Anyone who actually listened to Trump, even outside the context of the situation, could understand that he was talking about MS-13 and others who were committing heinous crimes in America. I was not “very angry” at that because I perfectly understood what he meant, just as anyone who is not brainwashed by the Left could.
 
Carrasquillo then brings up other races such as California’s 39th district, where the Democrat candidate is trailing the Republican by 2 points, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won that county, as well as in Texas’ Senate race between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke, where Cruz is ahead, even with Hispanic voters.
 
Well, in regards to the Texas Senate race, what you have is a Democrat candidate who is of Irish descent and his real name is Robert Francis O’Rourke but is addressed as “Beto” to pander to Hispanics in Texas. Meanwhile, you have Senator Ted Cruz, who is the descendant of a Cuban man who sought political asylum in the U.S. and whose real name is Rafael Edward Cruz. In other words, Cruz is a real Hispanic candidate.
 
The interesting thing about Beto O’Rourke is that Hispanics don’t claim he is appropriating our culture by calling himself “Beto”. You would think some would have a problem with this, but since he’s a Democrat, I guess he gets a pass.
 
Finally, Carrasquillo talks about how the Democrats have the money and resources to spend on Hispanic outreach, but choose against it, and such an action, Carrasquillo believes, will be a detriment to the Democrats come November.
 
Personally, I don’t think not spending money on Hispanic outreach will be a detriment to the Democrats. Spending time calling Trump a racist based on no substantial evidence, inciting violence against Trump staffers and supporters, promising to raise people’s taxes if elected, promising to impeach the duly-elected president on the grounds that he “colluded” with Russia despite zero evidence to it, promising to open our borders so we can be flooded with illegals, drug cartels, gun cartels and unending crime, promising to refund Iran’s nuclear capabilities, promising to basically undo our progress with North Korea, promising to put people back on welfare and implementing regulations that will cost people their jobs, promising to force you to pay for government systems that will bankrupt the country, promising to abolish institutions that protect people from criminals (ICE, prisons, etc.) and promising to impose heavy gun control measures to the point where the 2nd Amendment is essentially null and void is what will be a detriment to the Democrats.
 
Here’s the reality of the situation: the Democrat Party does not stand for Making America Great Again. They stand for hatred. Hatred for Trump and those who support and elected him. Hatred for this country. Hatred for traditional values. Hatred for foundational values. Hatred for everything that is right.
 
What they propose, as much as they want to sugarcoat it, is the impending death of this country, not only as founded, but as it stands.
 
Not a single one of their proposed ideas could actually help anyone. This has been true for some time, but now, it’s even easier to call these things out. Abolishing ICE will weaken our border security and destroy the Border States.
 
Abolishing prison will naturally and logically raise crime. It’s basically the next best thing to legalizing crime that the Left can come up with. You can’t go to jail if jail has been abolished, so what is stopping criminals from destroying people’s lives? They would have even more incentive to be evil, knowing they will not have to pay for it.
 
Medicare-for-all is an enterprise that could bankrupt the country on its own. Combine that with the fact that they want to abolish profits and establish a system of guaranteed income, and you have a society drenched in utter chaos and calamity.
 
The Democrats don’t have anything going for themselves. They can’t promote themselves, so they have to attack their opposition. They have no good ideas, so they attack the ideas of others. The only reason they are even considered a threat to the GOP is that the media is on their side. If the media really were unbiased, the Democrat Party would cease to exist.
 
Had they been unbiased up to now, Obama would not have won a reelection (he still likely would have won the first time, at least). The reason for this is not that Obama faced tough competition in 2012. The reason is that he would have been impeached long before the 2012 election.
 
The ironic thing is that, if they had been unbiased, it’s possible that Trump would not have felt the need to run for office and another Republican candidate would be POTUS right now.
 
Remember, part of the reason Trump ran is because of the fake news media being heavily biased and that Obama was destroying the country. With no Obama in office long enough to damage the country, Trump would not be in office right now.
 
But without the media, the Democrat Party has nothing. Sure, they can brainwash useful pawns to support socialism, but it’s not going to take them very far. Most of the country isn’t socialist. And even if we were, we would quickly drop the system of government to return to capitalism.
 
Which brings me to another topic to discuss at another time: the soul of an American is filled with freedom. We fought to gain our independence from oppression. We can do so once again should the need arise.
 
It’s in our DNA to yearn for freedom. We know that we’d rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
 
But that’s a topic for another time. To wrap things up, it’s interesting to see a member of the MSM calling out the Dems over their lack of outreach for Hispanics. But even if they heed this guy’s advice, there’s no way in Hell I would ever vote for a Democrat.
 
Isaiah 1:17
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”