We all know that the Left lives in a perpetual state of anger, outrage and offense, where they look for any and all reasons to be angry at something or someone and feel like some sort of tragic victim who is due some sort of justice. But recently, Leftists have been outraged at something particularly odd: the fact that an openly conservative Hollywood star shows that he is openly conservative.
You see, recently, President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the College Football National Championship game between LSU and Clemson University, where he received great cheers and standing ovations from the crowd, with the crowd also chanting “USA” upon seeing him.
However, that is not what the Left will choose to cover (can’t show that Trump is popular, because that would go against the narrative that the vast majority of this country hates and detests him). Also in attendance of this game was Hollywood star Vince Vaughn, who got the opportunity to have a conversation with the President of the United States and First Lady during the game and even shake the president's hand as shown above.
A camera recorded this occasion and sports “journalist” Timothy Burke tweeted out the video with the caption: “I’m very sorry to have to share this video with you. All of it, every part of it,” as though he was mourning the fact that a Hollywood celebrity who is not shy about his conservative beliefs was holding a civil conversation with Trump.
Of course, I do actually know why he and other Leftists were outraged. Hollywood is supposed to be THEIRS. At every awards show, in every movie, Leftist ideology must be not only shared but shoved down our throats and any contradicting ideology must be pushed down and obliterated. Hosts who make jokes at the expense of the woke celebrities must be lambasted (such as Ricky Gervais) and celebrities who dissent from the Leftist ideology in any way must be blacklisted and publicly shamed.
The “journalist” appeared to be mourning because he essentially was. Vince Vaughn is a beloved actor in Hollywood, having appeared or starred in many great comedies like Anchorman, Dodgeball, Wedding Crashers, and other movies. He is still working as an actor and producer in various films to this day, so his open conservatism hasn’t derailed his career like it has for other actors.
Vince Vaughn is still popular and beloved, so it apparently hurts the snowflake Left when they see him amicably and civilly speaking with the POTUS. You see, in their mind, even if you are a conservative, you should hate Trump. Even if you are a conservative, right-winger, you should still be on the side of the Left, at least when it comes to Trump, and given the opportunity, you should be seen yelling and screaming like a madman at Trump or cursing him out, or at least, actively avoiding him and/or trying to embarrass him. No one is allowed to like Trump, no one is allowed to have a dissenting opinion. Everyone is supposed to hold the same views as the Left, or they should be cancelled.
Of course, Burke got blasted for his inability to believe that someone, particularly someone like Vince Vaughn, would actually have the gall to be civil in the presence of Trump:
“You’ve successfully proven that Vince Vaughn is a Republican, that thing he has taken no effort to hide,” wrote Alex Griswold. He followed that up by saying: “DM me dude, I have a GIANT scoop about Jon Voight,” who is also another prominent conservative in Hollywood.
Marc Thiessen tweeted: “OMG the humanity! This is terrible! We must all hate Vince Vaughn! You would have done great under Stalin.”
Carpe Donktum, a known conservative meme-maker whose memes often get retweeted by conservatives and sometimes even by the President, tweeted: “Man, I just can’t believe how bold some of these Hollywood people are becoming, first Ricky, and now Vince. If this keeps up people might realize that they live in a free country, and it’s ok to have different opinions than the ones shouted at you on TV.”
If you remember, I recently wrote an article showing us just how few liberals there actually are in this country, with that number being just below 25%. In Hollywood, one would assume that at least 90% of the people there are liberal, so it can be rather rare to see a conservative Hollywood celebrity or star, but they do exist. And in the Left’s mind, that is horrible. As I said in the article about the number of liberals in the country, they are few in number so they have to be loud to pretend to be the mainstream opinion.
Virtually every Hollywood movie and every TV show produced today must bear a hyper-liberal message. A new Star Trek is being made? It should tackle Trump and Brexit (even though it’s literally set hundreds of years in the future, but I guess Trump is still going to be president in the 2360s and Britain will still be trying to leave the European Union) and point out how both of those things are not only bad, but are dangerous and violent for literally everyone. Trump is president and he continues winning electorally? Let’s make a movie about hunting and killing conservatives. More people tend to be okay with homosexuality as time goes on? Good, let’s overrepresent gay people as much as possible in films and tv, even though they are about 5% of the population, if that, and have “gay rights” organizations yell at us for not representing gay people enough anyway.
Movies that present a different ideology, or even just don’t shove the Leftist ideology down people’s throats, are labeled as “problematic”, “controversial” or “irresponsible”, such as the movie “1917”, which is about WWI but it doesn’t feature transgender military generals ordering a sufficiently marginalized, foreign, strong and independent woman of color to singlehandedly beat the Nazis (I know Nazis are from WWII, but the enemy would be treated as Nazis, as we generally are) all while flying the rainbow flag and denouncing white privilege and the United States and a president who wouldn’t be born for roughly another 30 years, so it’s labeled as “irresponsibly nationalistic”.
Any semblance of dissent must be culled, in the Left’s mind, and this has been the modus operandi for ages. The Chinese do it to this day. The Iranians do it. The Russians do it and did it often when they were the Soviet Union. In any dictatorship, where there is dissenting opinion, there are mysterious disappearances and killings. The American Left wishes they could be the dictators of the U.S., as dictators rule harshly in other countries. (Project Veritas recently released a video showing Bernie Sanders campaign staffers wishing to send Trump supporters to “reeducation camps” to “de-Nazify” us, so these people are no different from the commies in the USSR).
For Vince Vaugh to not only be conservative but also to be civil in the face of Trump, it is to be treated as a tragedy. Which is a little odd because, again, he is openly conservative. Back in 2013, he gave an interview where he said: “I think that… as you get older, you just get less trust in the government running anything. And that you start to realize when you really go back and look at the Constitution and the principles of liberty, the real purpose of government is to protect the individual’s right to sort of think and pursue what they have interest in. And that when you start drawing the lines, saying, as a society, we think this is inappropriate, we’re going to pass laws to protect them from themselves and/or take things away to protect themselves or move money from here to there, that you realize that you wake up with corruption and… you’ll wake up with a lot of problems that didn’t exist prior.”
It really shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that Vince Vaughn is a conservative, but again, the tragedy, I suppose, is that he didn’t yell at Trump like a decent human being would… or something dumb like that.
Thankfully, considering so many people already know that Vaughn is a conservative, and considering he still gets work in Lefty Hollywood, to the dismay of this particular sports “journalist”, I doubt he will be cancelled over this. Someone might get angry with him and lambast him or bash him on the internet, but he will be fine. But this does, sadly, go to show just how valueless basic civility is nowadays when being seen holding a conversation with someone the Left hates is considered some sort of devastating tragedy and when the expectation by the Left is that the President would be verbally assaulted.
“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.
Back in late October, the Trump administration greenlit an operation to kill the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which resulted in a raid on his compound and the terrorist to blow himself up (alongside three of his children) to avoid being killed or arrested by U.S. forces. Following this raid, the Left went into a fit because we killed the leader of ISIS, proving even more that they are adamantly against the United States.
In early January of 2020, following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, which was orchestrated by Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who once visited the Obama White House and has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, the United States used an MQ-9 Reaper drone to fire missiles at a convoy of terrorists leaving Baghdad International Airport. This strike not only killed dozens of terrorists, but it has been confirmed now by State Department officials that one of the deaths was the aforementioned general Soleimani.
Retired Lt. Col. James Carafano said: “The reported deaths of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani and the Iraqi commander of the militia that killed an American last week was a bold and decisive military action made possible by excellent intelligence and the courage of America’s service members. His death is a huge loss for Iran’s regime and its Iraqi proxies, and a major operational and psychological victory for the United States.”
Phillip Smyth, an expert on Iran-controlled Shia militias and the Middle East at the Washington Institute said: “This is a major blow. I would argue that this is probably the most major decapitation strike the United States has ever carried out… This is a man who controlled a transnational foreign legion that was controlling governments in numerous different countries… He had a hell of a lot of power and a hell of a lot of control. You have to be a strong leader in order to get these people to work with you, know how and when to play them off one another, and also know which Iranians do I need within the IRGC-QF (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a designated terrorist organization), which Lebanese do I need which, Iraqis do I need… that’s not something you can just pick up at a local five and dime. It takes decades of experience.”
Other military experts agreed that the killing of Soleimani was more significant than bin Laden or al-Baghdadi.
The Pentagon said in a statement: “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the nation. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
The Pentagon also said that Soleimani had orchestrated numerous attacks on U.S.-led coalition bases in Iraq over the last few months, including an attack on December 27th, which killed an American contractor and wounded U.S. servicemembers as well as Iraqi personnel.
Carafano also said: “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps… led by Suleimani, was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans in Iraq between 2003-2011, and countless more injured. He was a chief architect behind Iran’s continuing reign of terror in the region. This strike against one of the world’s most odious terrorists is no different than the mission which took out Osama bin Laden – it is, in fact, even more justifiable since he was in a foreign country directing terrorist attacks against Americans.”
Suffice to say that Soleimani was an evil piece of crap and no one but the bad guys would miss him. Enter the American Left, the fake news media and even a Hollywood elite being adamantly against this operation to kill a top enemy of the United States.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) complained on Twitter: “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”
A couple of things to say about this. First, I don’t remember Democrats complaining when Obama didn’t notify them that we would be killing bin Laden. That’s because the Commander-in-Chief does not need to notify Congress that he is going to kill a terrorist. These idiots also complained that Trump didn’t notify them that he was killing Baghdadi. The reason being that he didn’t want the secret of the operation being spread, potentially saving Baghdadi and putting American servicemembers’ lives in danger. Granted, we used a drone instead of armed forces this time around, but we know just how partisan these people are. They would’ve blabbed about targeting Soleimani in an effort to save his life and keep Trump from scoring any political victory.
How do I know these people are partisan hacks? Aside from EVERYTHING they’ve done over the past few years, look at how these people are reacting to these news. Instead of being elated that an objectively EVIL guy is dead, they all let their Trump Derangement Syndrome take over and are DEFENDING Iran.
Just three days ago, and moving on to the second point I wanted to make, Sen. Chris Murphy also tweeted the following regarding the attack on our embassy: “The attack on our embassy in Baghdad is horrifying but predictable. Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us. America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away. What a disgrace.”
Three days ago, Murphy was complaining that we weren’t doing anything and claimed that America was “impotent” in the Middle East because of Trump (totally ignoring the fact that Benghazi was attacked under Obama’s watch and he did nothing to help there). Fast-forward three days and now he’s complaining about taking action against THE GUY WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACK ON THE EMBASSY?!
Not that I find this the least bit surprising. They will attack Trump regardless of what he does. He doesn’t do something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump is weak”. He does something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump just started World War III”. It’s all a load of b.s. and no one in their right mind would take these people seriously for even a second.
But moving on to the other anti-American traitors, we find none other than the Washington Post, the official terrorist mourning organization, reporting: “Breaking news: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports.”
Don’t know if this quite beats “austere religious scholar” but it’s an embarrassment that it can come so close. Soleimani, as previously explained, was not Iran’s most “revered military leader”. He was a terrorist piece of garbage responsible for the deaths of hundreds of servicemembers and possibly thousands of Americans. And the only ones that “revered” the demon were people within the terrorist regime.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shared a video on Twitter of Iraqis “dancing on the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more.” And why would they be happy at Soleimani’s death? Because he was also the guy responsible for the deaths and kidnappings of protesters that had been troubling the terrorist regime for years in the neighboring country (reportedly, he caused the deaths of upwards of 500 people and injured another 20,000 protesters). We killed the guy who helped oppress the people of IRAQ and the people of Iraq are thankful.
Of course, this doesn’t stop the Left from further trying to paint Trump as a “warmonger” who just ignited the third World War and are cowering at what Iran might do in retaliation (because they were clearly oh, so peaceful before we killed Soleimani).
Despite the very clear evidence that Soleimani was a terrorist and that this was an attack in response to him ORCHESTRATING an attack on OUR embassy, the Left says that this is an act of war. By no means. This is an act of self-defense as a result of that attack on our embassy. It is an act of retribution for the THOUSANDS of American, not to mention Iranian and Iraqi lives, that he helped to take. It is an act of strength to show the terrorist regime that Obama is not president anymore and they can’t get away with whatever they want anymore.
This will not lead to World War III. I doubt this will even lead to full-blown war against Iran. Richard Engel said that “Iranians will consider US killing Soleimani an act of war. A proxy war could erupt. Likely in Iraq, but also a danger in Lebanon and Israel. This is a big escalation.” To which I say: Soleimani was already orchestrating numerous proxy wars in the region anyway. I don’t care if they consider this an act of war or an act of crapping on their sandwich; they will say whatever they want to justify further actions (and the media will be delighted by such actions). At most, this would cause a proxy war, but nothing more severe than that. If Iran actually had the means to fight us in a war, there’d be nothing stopping them from doing so. Unlike ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorists, Iran can’t go into hiding.
Now, Leftists could say: “See? This will only make things worse. This will cause the Iranians to attack us.” They were already attacking us and they have been FOR DECADES. It’s not like Trump attacked the Iranians unprovoked. They have been pulling crap against us, plotting and funding terrorist acts against us for decades at this point, pretty much since the Mullahs took over in 1979. Killing Soleimani will help deter future terrorist acts simply due to how many he was responsible for and was in the process of planning.
But what is perhaps the worst part of the Left’s clear betrayal of this country was something that actress Rose McGowan tweeted:
“Dear Iran, the USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.” She also tweeted a gif of what appears to be an Iranian flag, but edited to have a sun emoji and a lion emoji in the middle part, for some reason.
But regardless of that strange gif, it is pretty clear how spineless the Left is. Thankfully, McGowan does not represent the U.S. and the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are happy that a terrorist is dead. One Twitter user, who claims to be Iranian, replied to her: “I’m Iranian by birth. Iranians are happy. Do you realize that this guy was [a] psychopath? Part of a group that tortured, raped, sodomized its own citizens? Do you have any f***ing clue or do you just want attention? Soleimani makes Harvey Weinstein look like a saint. Let that sink!”
I would assume McGowan wants as much attention as Jane Fonda did by siding with the Vietcongs. Back then, it was Hanoi Jane. Today, we have Tehran McGowan, it seems. These idiot Leftists have zero clue what they are talking about and most likely have never even heard of Soleimani before recently, otherwise, they really wouldn’t be calling Trump’s administration the “terrorist regime” here.
The Left does not support the United States. They hate it when we succeed. They hate it when we win at any capacity. They think we should be groveling on the ground, begging for other countries’ “forgiveness” for our “past sins” and “transgressions”. If you need any more proof that the Left hates this country, look at what they are doing right this moment.
“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.
All things considered, almost all of the stories I write about showcase the Left’s twisted logic and ideals, whether it be relating to climate change or transgenderism or socialism, etc., we really are in no short supply of such stories. But I would like to point out two particular recent stories that really put into perspective just how twisted the Left’s logic and ideals are and how truly evil they are.
Let’s begin with MSNBC’s Joy Reid hoping that the raid on the Baghdad embassy would have turned like Benghazi.
For a bit of context, if you haven’t been playing very close attention to the situation, Hezbollah supporters attempted to raid the U.S. embassy in Baghdad because of an attack that successfully eliminated dozens of terrorists from Kataeb Hezbollah (and the fake news media, always siding against the U.S., opted to call them “protesters” and “mourners” instead of terrorist-sympathizers and supporters).
What Joy Reid did was reply to a tweet from a bot account that noted the fact that Trump had tweeted on Tuesday: “Read the Transcripts!” in relation to the transcripts of the July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky (though not sure why this was tweeted, since the impeachment story died pretty much as soon as the House voted to impeach Trump). Reid’s reply read as follows: “As Trump’s Benghazi unfolds in Iraq…”
Keep in mind that the embassy in Baghdad had diplomats and servicemembers trapped in there for hours and they were threatened with actual violence, as the “protesters” outside were chanting the usual “death to America” chants, as well as “down, down USA” and “death to Israel” chants. They could’ve caused some serious damage and actually might’ve killed some people, but Trump, unlike Obama, actually sent reinforcements to help and drive away the mob.
It’s worth mentioning the massive backlash that Reid received from a number of different people.
Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ was handled with decisive action, like an actual leader would respond. The response (since they actually bothered to respond, unlike Obama/Crooked [Hillary]) was really the anti-Benghazi response! You’re welcome.”
Former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright (who is a Democrat, to be fair, though you wouldn’t know it from this) tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ is now ending with no dead Ambassador, no dead service members, and the enemy withdrawing. A disappointing conclusion for Joy Reid and The Resistance, no doubt, but a great day for America.”
Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted: “What’s wrong with you? Is partisan hatred really that deep? We root for American soldiers, not against them.”
Yes, her partisan hatred is that deep that she would gladly trade away the lives of multiple service members and diplomats in exchange for the opportunity to attack Trump on what would’ve been his Benghazi if he weren’t an actual leader and an actual president, unlike the last one.
Trump actually sent help because he doesn’t hate this country and those who serve it, unlike Obama, who left four Americans for dead in Benghazi. But Leftists like Joy Reid were really hoping this would turn out like Benghazi, if not far worse with considerably more bloodshed, all for the opportunity to politicize the ever-living crap out of it and use it as a weapon against Trump’s reelection.
To the Left, if a Republican is in the White House, particularly one that they really hate and isn’t willing to kiss the ground they walk on, it’s worth it to sacrifice the lives of our OWN SOLDIERS and diplomats if that’s what it takes to score a political victory. The deaths of everyone inside that embassy would’ve been worth it if the fake news media got to talk about it at length all throughout 2020 to try and get Trump out of the White House.
This is only one of the many examples of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. But let us now move on to the next one.
This one is less of a story and more of an opinion piece as a result of a particular story. If you remember, I recently wrote an article about “Why People Have The Right To Defend Themselves” and in that article, I talked about a recent shooting in a Texas church that was thwarted thanks in part to a firearms instructor who shot the shooter and prevented more blood from being shed that Sunday morning.
Something I failed to mention in that story is the fact that, while the hero, Jack Wilson, was the one to stop the shooter, at least SIX other churchgoers were seen on video having pulled out their own guns and looking for the shooter, showing the restraint to not shoot randomly and risking causing more damage. So, at the very least, there were SEVEN people with guns in that church (not counting the shooter, who was a convicted criminal with no legal right to own guns and yet, still had one) and an opinion writer for USA Today thought it was “terrifying” that there would be any churchgoers aside from a firearms instructor who were carrying guns inside the church.
Yeah, the op-ed writer said it was “terrifying” that Christians were able to DEFEND THEMSELVES inside a church.
Elvia Diaz, the op-ed writer, wrote: “Texas has one of the nation’s least restrictive gun laws, including allowing armed security at houses of worship and allowing parishioners to bring their weapons to church. Gun advocates didn’t waste any time after the recent church incident to promote the idea of arming oneself.”
She writes that like the idea of arming oneself is bad, but that’s probably what she actually thinks. She thinks it’s bad that people are able to defend themselves, which is what I said in the beginning of that aforementioned article regarding people having the right to defend themselves: “People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion…”. That is literally the first two sentences of that article and Diaz is THE example of the kind of person I talked about there.
She doesn’t think people have the right to defend themselves and finds it “terrifying” that they do. Regardless, she continued: “The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. And that isn’t going anywhere. But that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere.”
Two points to make here. First of all, the argument of “the Founding Fathers never pictured assault weapons when writing the Second Amendment” is extremely stupid. Of course they didn’t picture it. THEY HADN’T BEEN INVENTED YET. But at the same time, they never specified that the people could only have a particular firearm BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again because it bears repeating: the Second Amendment wasn’t created for people to go hunting. It wasn’t created for people to protect their homes (though that’s a side benefit). It was created for people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. “Spelling out the types of firearms Americans should bear” would go against the Founding Fathers’ intentions. They wanted an American populace to be able to defend itself against a tyrannical government should the need arise. Back then, just about everyone had muskets, pistols and horses, whether they be soldiers or farmers (and the soldiers back then, at least a good number of them, were farmers). The Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and if they could’ve envisioned the creation of “assault” weapons like the ones we have today, they would’ve allowed for people to have them.
Secondly, it does give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere. Existing laws in the books are what prohibit such a thing, for the most part, and even then, not entirely. Americans (with the legal ability to sell guns) have the right to sell them to just about anyone (who passes background checks and the like) to carry anywhere they are allowed to (not in gun-free zones, but that sure as hell doesn’t stop bad guys from doing it, which is why gun-free zones are idiotic and dangerous).
But regardless of these arguments, Diaz actually inadvertently makes a case AGAINST GUN CONTROL in her op-ed: “Sunday’s shooting isn’t just about Jack Wilson’s heroism. It’s about how [the shooter] got a hold of a weapon in the first place, given his criminal record.”
She accidentally recognizes that gun laws in place aren’t going to keep CRIMINALS WHO, BY DEFINITION, DON’T OBEY THE LAW from obtaining guns and using them at their pleasure. Again, the shooter was a criminal BEFORE the shooting, and didn’t have a right to own a weapon, and yet, because he is a CRIMINAL, he had one anyway and intended to use it against churchgoers and cause as much damage and pain as possible. No gun law that exists today or could be conceived would’ve prevented the shooting in that church. But a good guy with a gun, and if need be, several other parishioners willing to defend themselves and their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, kept that shooting from being one of the worst ones in recent time.
The Left vehemently denies the power of the good guy with a gun EVEN WHEN TALKING ABOUT A STORY WHERE SUCH A GUY IS PRESENT.
Suffice to say that USA Today received major backlash for this piece.
Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine shooting, tweeted: “I stared down the barrel of a gun at Columbine, where 13 people were murdered and almost 30 wounded. I wished then and now that we had a Jack Wilson that fateful day. The world would be a better place if there were more men and women like Jack Wilson…”
Michael Malice tweeted: “Freedom is terrifying, insists the enemy of the people… This is the entire point of concealed carry, that murderers et al don’t know who around them is packing.”
Congressional candidate Lisa Sutton tweeted: “What’s terrifying is your attempt to downplay a heroic act by law abiding Americans, who were focused on stopping an evil person from inflicting harm upon others.”
Diaz found it “terrifying” that there were people in that church who were not firearms instructors and had access to guns. She writes that, while much is known about Wilson, nothing is known about the other parishioners who were seen wielding weapons. Why does it matter whether anything is known about them? THEY DIDN’T FIRE A SHOT AND THEY WEREN’T THE CRIMINAL! Jack Wilson stopped the shooter, so it makes sense to find out about him. The shooter was the evil s.o.b. that intended to kill many people that day, so it makes sense to find out about him. But why would it be important or necessary to find out about the others who were only ready to fight if they had to?
Again, they showed restraint and didn’t fire a single shot, not wanting to cause harm to anyone. That tells me that they have undergone at least some training with their firearms to be comfortable wielding them while also being extremely cautious. This is what JUST ABOUT EVERY LEGAL GUN OWNER DOES! The Left tries to paint legal gun owners as people who are just as sick and depraved as those who would shoot up schools, churches, etc. when reality is the exact opposite. Want to know what a legal gun owner looks like? Look at the people of the church in White Settlement. One of them acted and fired upon the shooter once he confirmed who it was. The other six were ready to join the fight if necessary but kept themselves from causing unnecessary harm to anyone. THAT is a gun owner, not the crazy demons that the Left makes us out to be.
But again, this piece is another example of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. The writer of this op-ed found it “terrifying” that LEGAL GUN OWNERS COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP. She even tried to blame this shooting on Gov. Abbott and the law that allows for people to carry in a place of worship when it’s because of that law (and the Grace of God, of course) that the shooting didn’t turn out much worse.
Evil will always look to do evil; you can’t legislate it into non-existence. But you can allow for good people to do something about it and not constrain them. That’s what that law aimed to do and what that law successfully accomplished. But to the Left, that’s not a good thing in the least.
Diaz says gun advocates quickly jumped on that story to advocate in favor of gun ownership. And that’s true because THIS IS A PERFECT STORY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO ARM THEMSELVES. As Diaz noted, the criminal had access to a gun, despite gun laws prohibiting him from doing so. This PROVES that criminals (since some people apparently need proof of this) don’t care for the law in the least and will do what they want. The best counter to such criminals is a good guy (or multiple guys) with a gun.
Think about the way shootings are prevented or stopped. When you hear of a potential shooting having taken place but was ultimately prevented, you hear of police or someone with a gun keeping the shooter from killing as many people as they could. The law is just a piece of paper that is utterly meaningless without those to enforce it. No law has ever prevented a shooting. PEOPLE have prevented shootings. More specifically, ARMED people have prevented shootings. And when they aren’t prevented, they are thwarted by such people.
This, in the mind of the Left, is not a good thing because it robs them of the ability to advocate for gun control, which only exacerbates the problem of shootings. These people are sick and twisted.
“Woe to those who call good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In an article where I defended the idea of Christians defending President Trump, I noted how it was sinful to lie and to bear false witness against someone. In this case, I am certainly not surprised that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg would lie and bear false witness against the Founding Fathers, but I still feel the need to clean the stain that he is trying to leave behind.
Speaking to children in a school (making sure they grow up to hate America just as much as he does), Mayor Pete tried to convince the children present that the Founding Fathers were silly, ignorant troglodytes who did not understand right from wrong and did not understand that slavery was not good.
“Similarly, the amendment process; they were wise enough to realize that they didn’t have all the answers, and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery, or civil rights. It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing. They did not respect civil rights, and yet they created the framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution too and ensure true equal protection for all,” said the fake Christian.
While it sounds like he is praising the Founding Fathers in some places, he is doing nothing but passive aggressively insulting them when he is completely wrong about this.
Of course, the fake Christian Democrat was blasted online for his words, with people like historian and columnist Jay Cost saying: “The ignorance is astounding” on Twitter.
To further emphasize just how ignorant and wrong Mayor Pete is, he elaborated that the guy who wrote the Constitution, Governor Morris, “gave an amazing series of speeches in Philadelphia denouncing slavery.”
James Madison, on August 8th, 1787, made notes of the debates regarding the text of the Constitution featuring Morris and wrote:
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert ‘free’ before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south widely & every step you take thro’ ye great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
Suffice to say, as Madison’s own words can be considered, many of the Founding Fathers were vehemently AGAINST slavery and found it to be an abhorrent practice. When Madison writes: “Are they property? Why then is no other property included?”, he is basically talking about the discussion and debates they had been having over this matter. No one was debating whether someone’s house was property, or whether someone’s dog as property or whether someone’s furniture was property. They were debating whether slaves, fellow human beings who very much look like human beings, even if they have a different skin color, are property or are to be considered their fellow Man, and it’s quite clear where James Madison stood on this.
And Madison is far from the only Founding Father to hold slavery with such disdain. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most often demonized for having owned slaves at one point, had originally written this in a draft of the Declaration of Independence but eventually took it out: “He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”
Jefferson is charging King George III with waging war against HUMAN nature and violating the sacred right to life and liberty of PERSONS in Africa that he sent to the colonies to turn into the slaves of the highest bidders. If he didn’t consider African slaves to be people and humans, he wouldn’t have written this in his draft and the only reason I could consider for having taken it out is because some people were debating in favor of holding slaves and did not want that part in the Declaration of Independence, as it would’ve delegitimized their slave-owning practices.
In a letter to Lawrence Lewis on August 4th, 1797, our nation’s first president, George Washington, wrote: “I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery.”
Washington, by the way, was another target of the hateful Left as being demonized for having owned slaves at one point, but he clearly loathed the practice.
Our nation’s second president, John Adams, wrote on June 8th, 1819: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States… I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in… abhorrence.”
Our Founding Fathers minced no words about how they felt about slavery. Now, Leftists could say “but if they hated it so much and thought it so evil, why didn’t they do something about it?” and I’ve already explained elsewhere why this is: slavery, as a practice, was dying at the time, not to mention that they did do things to end slavery.
From December 2nd, 1793 to March 3rd, 1795, the 3rd Congress debated and eventually passed a bill to suppress slave trade and prohibiting the U.S. from trading with foreign countries. What’s more, multiple sessions in the Senate and House held debates regarding the abolition of slavery for a very long time.
For a time, the U.S. prohibited slave trading ships from entering and limited the number of slaves. Again, the practice was dying and Congress, at least the Senators and Representatives who wanted to end the practice and had the power to do so, worked towards killing the practice faster. The only thing that made slavery worse and caused a resurgence of it, particularly in the South, was the invention of the cotton gin, which made picking cotton (which used to be extremely difficult and hardly worth the hassle) a far easier thing to accomplish. This drove up demand for slaves to pick cotton and as a result, slave trade continued and, as I said, got worse until the Emancipation Proclamation.
The notion that our Founding Fathers “did not understand that slavery was a bad thing” is completely erroneous and ignorant. The Founding Fathers, particularly the notable ones, ABHORRED the practice of slavery and hoped that it would be put to an end one day, having done what they could with the time that they had. And the work they did in limiting and prohibiting slave trade would’ve been quintessential to ending slavery altogether in the country if the cotton gin had not driven up demand for slavery and caused Congress to amend and lift those prohibitions.
The Founding Fathers made their views on slavery perfectly clear and it is wrong for anyone, let alone a Presidential candidate, to smear them as these ignorant Neanderthals who hardly knew right from wrong and stumbled their way to allowing for future generations to change things for the better. Not that I expect any different from Pete Buttigieg or anyone else on the Democrat Party. Their hatred for this country, particularly for its founding principles, is no secret. Failed Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke also tried to smear the country’s very founding as racist and bigoted. No Democrat running for president, and no Democrat holding any sort of electoral seat, can be said that they hold any love for this country.
And with ignorant statements such as the ones by Buttigieg, it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion, choosing to live in a world of fairy tales where violence doesn’t occur and people are naturally good. That simply is not the reality we live in and as a result, people have to be able to defend themselves if and when the unimaginable does happen.
I say this largely because of the rather bloody and strange weekend we recently had. Let’s begin with the earliest story of the weekend, which is of an anti-Semitic attack by two women in New York (which ended an entire week of roughly 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the Democrat-owned state).
While this one did not really result in anyone’s death (thankfully), it showcases the need for people to be able to defend themselves regardless. A woman, Tiffany Harris, was arrested after having assaulted three Jewish women and shouting anti-Semitic slurs at them. She was then released by the NYPD without bail and was arrested once again in another assault against another woman (though it’s unclear if the woman was Jewish too).
Again, this one is not outright deadly, but it easily could be, particularly since the hateful bigot will not face any charges or punishment for her actions due to Bill de Blasio’s irrational “bail reform” laws that allow for the bad guys to be released extremely easily.
It’s not even as if the hateful bigot denied that she did it. She flat out admitted to the police upon her arrest: “Yes, I slapped them. I cursed them out. I said ‘F-U, Jews.’” She ADMITTED to the assault but the police could do nothing about it because of the idiot mayor’s pandering to criminals for votes.
While this case has a little less to do with the kind of self-defense I will be talking about in this article, it does relate to the sort of idiocy (at best) that fills the Democrat Party’s minds when it comes to legislation. Criminals and anti-Semites get to run amok in New York and de Blasio even has the nerve to try and blame this on Trump and on Rudy Giuliani (these things didn’t happen, particularly to this extent, when Giuliani was mayor of NYC). He’s a fraud and a danger to the people of New York City.
Regardless, let’s move on to another anti-Semitic attack that happened in New York, where a machete-wielding man attacked Jews in a Hanukkah party, wounding five people. The man was arrested and according to Rockland County Assistant DA Michael Dugandzic, he “was found with blood all over his clothing and a strong smell of bleach in the car, like he was trying to destroy evidence.”
Anti-Semitism has been on the rise in Democrat-owned New York, while the Democrats have tried to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the President and his “inflammatory rhetoric” despite the fact that it’s the Democrats in the House who failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because their openly anti-Semitic party members didn’t want to be singled out and Pelosi caved to their demands, switching from condemning anti-Semitism to condemning all hatred in general.
Again, the Democrat Party owns New York, where the bulk of this anti-Semitism is occurring. I don’t care whether or not you think Trump’s rhetoric is “inflammatory” (it isn’t), one cannot realistically blame Trump for anti-Semitic attacks when he has been the most pro-Jewish president in recent history. And for all the “anti-Muslim hatred” that he is accused of pushing, how come we don’t hear of stories where Muslims are targeted in anti-Muslim attacks? Not that I would want them to be, but the charge of Islamophobia is placed on Trump far more often than anti-Semitism, but we never hear of Muslims being targeted like this.
For all the charges of racism against Trump, we never really hear of anti-black attacks (unless they are made up stories like Jussie Smollett) or anti-Hispanic attacks as a result of Trump’s rhetoric. Granted, we also don’t often hear of anti-Semitic attacks largely because the media doesn’t care about them unless they are either fairly major (like the ones discussed) or can be blamed on Trump in some form or fashion. Again, the stories I talked about mark two of TEN anti-Semitic attacks in New York this week alone, but we have hardly heard anything about those other eight.
Now, moving on to the final act of violence that occurred this weekend, and what really drives the point of this article, let’s talk about the White Settlement church shooting that happened on Sunday.
During a Sunday service, a bad guy with a gun (who was a felon and wasn't legally allowed to own guns but still had them, further destroying any argument for gun control that clearly doesn't work) went into the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire on churchgoers. According to The Dallas Morning News, “one person died at the scene of the shooting, one person died en route to a hospital, and another person was transported to a hospital in critical condition. The shooter is believed to be one of those three people, said Fort Worth Fire Department spokesman Mike Drivdahl.”
The shooter was neutralized by an armed churchgoer, preventing the shooter from taking more lives than he did. This is thanks in large part to a bill signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last September that allowed for lawful gun owners to carry guns in places of worship. This law, by the way, was maligned by Democrats like Joe Biden, who said it was “totally irrational” to do that. It, in fact, is completely rational, as bad guys with guns will shoot wherever there are people to kill and will target people without guns (or people who worship God, if they hate Jews or Christians) no matter what the law says. This kind of law gives law-abiding citizens the ability to fight back should such a horrendous situation ever occur.
It’s for these kinds of situations that people have the right to defend themselves. Now, Leftists will still argue “if the bad guy with a gun didn’t have a gun in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”. True, but there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people. There will always be bad guys with guns, so no legislation in the world will get guns out of the hands of bad guys.
New Zealand implemented a “mandatory” gun buy-back program and it’s a complete and utter failure. California, the state with some of the strictest gun control laws, had EIGHT mass slayings in 2019, according to The Associated Press. The AP reports that a total of 41 mass slayings occurred nationally in 2019 (The AP defines mass slayings as killings were four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator). 33 out of those 41 mass slayings were firearm-related and, again, California was responsible for eight of them, the most out of any other state.
Despite the heavy gun control laws in places like California, Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc., we see some of the most bloodshed in such places. Now, Leftists could argue that if guns simply were not there, these things wouldn’t happen, which is altogether wrong. No shootings would happen, but killings would still occur. Just look at London and other places in the U.K. being ravaged by stabbing attacks day in and day out to find my words ring true.
Bad people will look for ways to hurt and kill others. Restricting good people from being able to defend themselves only worsens the problem and makes easy targets out of the innocent.
Had Texas not had the law that allowed for gun owners to carry inside places of worship, far more people would’ve died. The perpetrator had a gun and little was going to keep him from committing an act of violence. The little that keeps him from doing it is a good guy with a gun ready and able to fight back.
And returning to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York, do you think they would be anywhere near as bad if people were allowed to arm themselves? Recently, I had seen a picture on Twitter of Orthodox Jews openly carrying rifles in Rockland County (as seen above), the same county where the machete attack occurred. They have to protect themselves and have every right to do so, but New York laws restrict them. Of course, the particular Jews that were in those pictures do not have to worry too much about the existing gun control laws, but there’s no doubt that de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo want stricter laws which will only hurt the citizens of New York looking to arm themselves to protect themselves.
While the 2nd Amendment exists to protect people from a tyrannical government, a secondary benefit is that it allows for people to protect themselves against anyone who might wish to cause them harm, whether or not they are from the government.
The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well what tyranny looked like and wanted to prevent that from happening in the new country they had created. The 2nd Amendment was written and passed for the very purpose of keeping the government in check by We the People. The only reason this country isn’t far more authoritarian than it is is because of the 2nd Amendment, which is why it’s so heavily targeted by the authoritarian Left.
But the right to self-defense has existed long before guns were even a thing, as Jesus Christ Himself has advised His followers to arm themselves with a sword, even if it means selling the very clothes on your back.
We the People have the right to defend ourselves because the government cannot do a better job of it than we can.
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
This Is Why No One Likes The Media: MSM Tries To Defame Cadets Playing “Circle Game” As White Supremacists
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 41% of Americans trust the Mass Media (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.). And over the weekend, a prime example of exactly why came up.
On Saturday, the football teams for America’s Army and Navy met to play one another in an intense rivalry game; a game that was notably visited by our Commander-in-Chief President Donald J. Trump, who was met with loud cheers. But one of the biggest takeaways from the game, at least in the mind of the media, is the actions of cadets, who, upon realizing that a TV camera was pointing his way, made the “Circle Game” gesture on the shoulder of another cadet, who briefly looked at it and then looked away, sort of awkwardly grinning afterwards because he knew exactly what that gesture was and why he needed to avert his gaze (other cadets also made the gesture at different times).
However, many Leftist activists and the fake news media are seemingly completely unaware of the game (or act like it, at least) and thought the gesture was not the “Circle Game” gesture, but rather, a White Power or White Supremacy gesture.
Mike Brehm from USA Today Sports reported: “Questions erupted during the Army-Navy game in Philadelphia when students appeared to make the White Power hand symbol during a pregame broadcast. Spokespersons from the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy told USA Today Sports they have been made aware of the issue – which blossomed on social media as the game wore on – and the schools are looking into it.”
Note all the b.s. that we find in that paragraph alone.
First of all, he calls it “the White Power hand symbol” as though it’s a hand sign that pretty much everyone understands is supposed to mean that when the VAST majority of people are grounded in reality and know that that’s not a “white power” hand symbol. But he reports it as though that’s exactly what it is and everyone interprets it to mean what he says it is. It’s nothing but fake news and it’s pretty clear how b.s. this is.
Secondly, they actually got the U.S. Army and Navy academies to investigate this as though it’s an “issue”, as Brehm reports. It’s not an issue worth of an investigation (that will likely cost taxpayer dollars). It’s not an issue at all! It’s just an academy cadet playing the “Circle Game” from the early 2000s.
For those of you who might not know, the Circle Game is a game where you make a hand gesture like the one the cadet made but you have to make that gesture below the waist. If you catch someone looking at the gesture below the waist, you get to hit them on the shoulder as hard as you want. It’s a dumb game people (mostly boys) would play back in the early 2000s.
There was this show I used to watch and really like from the early-to-mid 2000s called “Malcolm in the Middle.” Some of you may have watched it as well. In one of the episodes, Malcolm’s family is invited to dinner to a restaurant by Stevie’s family, a friend of Malcolm’s. One of the subplots of the episode revolves around Malcolm’s older and bully brother Reese playing the circle game, particularly with Stevie, who viewers of the show know is pretty physically weak and fragile.
In fact, if you look up this particular episode (titled “Dinner Out”) and you go to the Fandom Wiki page for the episode, you find the following picture:
Would you say that Malcolm, who is supposed to be one of the most grounded (pun not intended) characters in the show, is making a “white power” hand gesture? Would you say that he is indicating to the audience that he is secretly a “white supremacist”? OF COURSE NOT! IT’S JUST A DUMB GAME FROM THE EARLY 2000s!
No one who is in their right mind, certainly no one who is even remotely truthful, would consider that hand gesture to be a racist one.
And yet, you have dishonest idiots like Mike Brehm getting PAID to write idiotic reports like this as though it’s a national tragedy and an embarrassment. Of course, it doesn’t end there either.
Far-Left activists piled on, calling the gesture (and, in turn, the cadets) racist and white supremacist and trying to tie that in with the fact that President Trump was there.
One Leftist activist tweeted: “As an American, as a Navy Dad, as a decent human being… you hate to see racist West Point cadets emboldened by the presence of the Racist-in-Chief at an Army-Navy Game to throw up the “White Power” sign on national TV. Disgusting.”
Not surprising at all that this guy hates Trump and calls him a racist. The guy is an idiot himself. He parrots the idea that the CIRCLE GAME is a “white power” sign. It’s utterly ridiculous and completely dishonest, but hey, I don’t expect anything less from the Left.
Thankfully, PLENTY of people pushed back against the insane narrative and protected the innocent cadet.
Former senior White House adviser Cliff Sims wrote: “Here we go again. This time it’s [Mike Brehm] of [USA Today Sports] trying to ruin the lives of cadets for playing the circle game, because in some alternate reality they just MUST be white supremacists. At some point someone’s gotta bring a defamation case against these lunatics.”
Sports analyst Clay Travis also pushed back against the insanity: “Good lord. They were playing the circle game. America has gone insane.”
Not America, Clay, just the Left who will find any and all excuses to be offended. They live in a perpetual state of anger and scorn and hatred, so they must push it on other people and demand they be as angry, scornful and hateful as they are.
Curt Schilling wrote: “This is just idiotic. It’s a bunch of guys playing the circle game about 10 years after their friends all stopped. But ya, let’s make it out to be racist, since everything else you see and hear is as well.”
Attorney Kurt Schlichter issued a warning to those who would defame these cadets: “This is a warning to the media… If you Covington the cadets, you will be held accountable in court in front of a jury and not in your comfortable, sympathetic blue enclave venue. Do not participate in the defamation of American heroes.” He then went on to tag a few lawyers who would be able to help the cadet if he wishes to legally fight back against the libel.
Others also made the point that I myself am about to make: even if it wasn’t clearly the circle game, making the “ok” hand symbol is also not racist.
Back in January of this year, Kathy Griffin tried to libel Covington basketball players for making what she considered “racist” hand gestures… they were the symbol for celebrating a successful three-pointer by one of their teammates.
But even if you also took out the context of basketball, that symbol is NOT a symbol of white supremacy and it’s utterly ridiculous to suggest so.
Look at the following people making the “ok” hand gesture:
What person in his right mind would suggest that OBAMA, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bill de Blasio are throwing up “white power” signs? There’s no denying these people are racist, but one would not claim that they are white supremacists because of the gesture alone.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest such a thing, and yet, these Left-wing reporters and activists, in all their shared idiocy, attempt to libel cadets as being racists and throwing up secretive “white power” hand gestures.
It’s for crap like this, and for crap like the Covington case that Schlichter referenced, that so few people trust or like the media. They are an utter disgrace to the very profession they claim to be a part of. They are not journalists; they are propagandists using the power of the free press. They can claim whatever they want with zero repercussions, regardless of the sort of damage it causes to a person’s character or life.
The media tried to ruin a Christian, Trump-supporting HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT’S LIFE AND FUTURE and they just tried something fairly similar with a cadet of a military academy.
THAT is what is disgusting about it and I sincerely hope that the cadet and whoever else gets targeted for this nonsense sues the heck out of these “news” people and organizations that publish such damaging b.s. Mike Brehn needs to be held accountable for such reckless reporting and libel, as well as all other “journalists” that do this.
“There are men in you who slander to shed blood, and people in you who eat on the mountains; they commit lewdness in your midst.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I have stated in the past, the Ukraine story is nothing more than a revamped version of the Russian collusion narrative, filled with nothing but lies and smears against Trump, accusing him of things he didn’t do, like trying to get “dirt” on Biden, which is a current Democrat talking point regarding the situation. Everything about it, from the whistleblower’s strange report to his connections to Democrats like Adam Schiff and Joe Biden, reeks of a not-so-silent coup attempt by the Democrats.
But despite every negative thing under the sun that the Democrats can throw at Trump, regardless of the circumstance or the setting, the President enjoys pretty normal approval ratings.
Looking at Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, we find that Donald Trump’s approval rating sits at 50%, which is rather normal for his administration. Compare that to even just a week ago, when his approval rating stood at 47%, also despite the negative coverage and the constant attacks from the press and from Democrats.
The President had enjoyed a recent high of 53% approval, around the time the Ukraine call “scandal” was brought up by Democrats and shortly before Trump released the transcript to the call, showing that there was no actual quid pro quo, nor any other type of crime that can be pointed out, despite what Democrats and the media might try to convey (likely a part of the reason as to why Pelosi decided not to have a formal impeachment inquiry vote in the House).
Following that, his approval rating dipped down a bit, falling to a recent low of 46%, but far from terrible, or even his record-low in the Rasmussen poll of 39%.
Considering it is currently sitting at 50% and around that area, it’s pretty easy to tell that this latest attempt at destroying Donald Trump is yet another one of the Democrats’ many, many duds. Russian hacking didn’t work, Russian collusion didn’t work, Stormy Daniels didn’t work, campaign finance violations accusations didn’t work, calling him “Hitler” hasn’t worked, and now, the Ukraine call “scandal” isn’t working.
And with the strategies that Democrats are incorporating in their campaigns, that of trashing Trump and promising to get rid of him, likely won’t work either. Moody’s Analytics has Trump winning in a landslide in all three of their models if things maintain course (with one showing Trump narrowly losing only if Democrat turnout is high and the economy is in the toilet, as in, if it crashes by 12% shortly before Election Day).
There is still a little over a year before the 2020 election happens, and a lot can happen in that span of time. It’s still not entirely clear who the Democrat nominee will be, with Biden seemingly losing some ground to Elizabeth Warren. However, regardless of who the Democrat nominee will be, if things stay relatively as they are today, even if just a little bit worse (Moody’s predicts that even a 9% crash in the stock market would still give Trump the win, even if it’s a bit closer than the other models, which show Trump winning by a bigger landslide than he did in 2016), it’s more likely than not that Donald Trump will come out of the 2020 election having been re-elected as President of the United States, which will most definitely send the media into a frenzy.
And it’s pretty clear, at this point, that if all the Democrats have is nothing but lies and accusations, that will definitely not be enough to destroy Trump, no matter what the Left might want. There’s a reason why even some Leftists believe that impeaching Trump will lead to his re-election in 2020. It’s not what Americans want, regardless of what the heavily-skewed Fox News poll might show.
President Trump is popular, even more so than Obama at the same point in his own presidency, who only had 45% approval at the time. That is a fact that no Leftist wants to acknowledge, even if doing so is to their detriment.
“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.
The ever-crazy woke Left has made many spicy claims about a number of things being racist, sexist, homophobic, violent or any combination of all of them. Among these strange takes are the claim that a fantasy football auction was racist, that libraries are racist, that outdoor sports clubs are racist, that honoring a white man who helped black people is racist, that wanting a healthy body makes you a Nazi and that Disney’s “The Lion King” is fascist.
Now, we find another equally-as-ridiculous claim by a socialist professor who clearly is lacking in the mental health department.
You see, according to a University of Washington professor, the aquatic lifeform that lives in a pineapple under the sea is racist, sexist, “violent” and perpetuates colonialist thought and cultural appropriation.
You cannot make this stuff up.
In an academic journal, the professor explains that the fictional setting of Bikini Bottom is problematic because it is based on the nonfictional Bikini Atoll, a coral reef in the Marshall Islands which were used by the U.S. military to test nuclear bombs during the Cold War. The U.S. government, in order to use the area, had to relocate the people indigenous to the region and those indigenous people could never return because of the copious amounts of radiation.
This, in the lunatic professor’s mind, means that SpongeBob SquarePants, even if not intending to, represents colonialism on the part of America because the indigenous people of the area had to be relocated.
Now, call me crazy, but I think relocating an indigenous people somewhere far away from the site of nuclear detonations is the better option between that and letting them remain there until the nukes kill them. The U.S. didn’t have much of a choice as to where to test its nuclear arsenal because a lot of people live in different places and it’s better to move relatively smaller populations than to commit a nuclear holocaust.
Professor Barker, the lunatic professor in question, further tried to argue that SpongeBob had the “privilege” of “not caring about the detonation of nuclear bombs,” because one of the show’s writers, in explaining SpongeBob’s character, said the sentient sponge was “a guy who could get super excited about a napkin but wouldn’t care if there was an explosion outside.”
Because of this, Barker argues that “the detonations do not cause concern for the characters, as they did for the Bikinians, nor do they compromise SpongeBob’s frequent activities, like visiting hamburger joints or the beach with friends.”
Now, someone has to REALLY hate fun in order to seriously make any of these arguments and the ones that I will further share.
In case it’s not apparent to this University professor, who probably teaches her students the wonders of Marxism and veganism and is responsible for the “education” of many young people (God help them), SpongeBob SquarePants is a FICTIONAL CARTOON CHARACTER!
I don’t know how much clearer it can be based on the fact that he is two-dimensional and a TALKING AND WALKING SEA SPONGE!
The character was written as being a complete dunce, and as seasons went on, got even dumber. It’s an outright meme how dumb he is, when in one episode, you can see SpongeBob and Patrick celebrating over “saving Bikini Bottom” while it’s literally on fire and explosions are happening, as shown below:
But that scene is clearly played for a joke, which everyone gets and because it’s a fictional cartoon, so it doesn’t matter, at the end of the day, what happens to the city. By the end of the episode, the city will be just fine, no one ever really dies on the show, at least on-screen. It makes ZERO sense to accuse A FICTIONAL CARTOON SPONGE of having “privilege”.
But that’s not all she has to complain about. No, Leftists never run out of things to complain about.
She also tried to argue that, and bear with me here, SpongeBob and his friends continually perpetuate past injustices to the indigenous people through their “occupation and reclaiming” of the show’s nonfictional “Goo Lagoon”, what is essentially an underwater beach.
This, Barker argues, means that the setting of the show and the fact that “Goo Lagoon” is a place SpongeBob and his friends frequent is “symbolic violence” against indigenous people.
Furthermore, Barker insists that “although the U.S. government removed the people of Bikini from the atoll above the surface, this does not give license to SpongeBob or anyone else, fictitious or otherwise, to occupy Bikini.”
Basically, the place is off-limits to even cartoon characters because the U.S. military relocated the indigenous people so they could test nukes. That is the kind of illogical argument this woman is trying to make.
Barker added: “SpongeBob’s presence on Bikini Bottom continues the violent and racist expulsion of Indigenous peoples from their lands (and in this case their cosmos) that enables U.S. hegemonic powers to extend their military and colonial interests in the postwar era.”
Now, if you thought THAT was crazy, hold on because it gets worse. Not only is SpongeBob violent and racist for existing in Bikini Bottom, but the show is also guilty of “cultural appropriation of iconic Pacific Island representations” when they show that SpongeBob lives inside a pineapple and Squidward lives inside an Easter Island-like statue.
Barker also has problems with the theme song of the show because “the viewer becomes an unwitting participant in the co-opting of Bikini’s story and the exclusion of the Bikinian people.”
And while Barker does say that the creators of the show likely didn’t intend to be this “racist”, she does say that the area is “not theirs for the taking.”
I don’t know how much clearer it can be that this “argument” – and I give it a lot of undeserved credence by calling it that, even in quotation marks – doesn’t work because it’s A) a fictional town filled with sentient fish, and B) underneath the actual coral reef of the area where Indigenous people were, so there were never any Indigenous people in the FICTIONAL TOWN FILLED WITH SENTIENT FISH!
But moving on from this, the show is also largely sexist because Sandy Cheeks is the only female character in the main cast and Barker claims that the only reason Sandy exists in the first place is to boost gender diversity in the show.
Even the fact that SpongeBob is called “Bob” is problematic in her eyes because the name “Bob” “represents the everyday man, a common American male, muck like a ‘Joe’”. So any person named “Bob” or “Joe” represents the common American male, and that is apparently a bad thing.
Anyone want to mention to her that the current frontrunner for the Democrat nomination is named “Joe”? And he definitely does not represent the common American male. His policies and his mannerisms attempt to completely trash and abandon the common American male because that’s what his lunatic, extremist Party demands.
Now, I just have to ask: how does anyone possibly come up with nonsense like this without taking an insane amount of drugs? Because this is not what a normal, reasonable and at least average-intelligence human being theorizes.
Fans of the show, interestingly enough, theorized that the lore behind SpongeBob and the origin of Bikini Bottom is a result of those nuclear detonations and that the residents of Bikini Bottom sprung up as a result of the radiation from those nukes.
But one must really hate any and all kinds of fun and entertainment to try and claim that SpongeBob SquarePants is racist, sexist and a representation of American “colonialism” and injustice against Indigenous people simply because of the setting the show is BASED on.
Love or hate the cartoon, no one even reasonably sane would try and seriously levy these arguments on social media, let alone IN AN ACADEMIC JOURNAL!
If anyone made these arguments on social media, or even on mainstream media, they’d be laughed at and ridiculed to high heaven, so for a university professor to write this is particularly sad and troubling when you think about it.
Like I said before, this woman is a university professor, meaning that she has students whom she teaches. If this is what she has to say about A NICKELODEON CARTOON, I can’t imagine what she might say about things like capitalism, social justice, Karl Marx, Trump, etc. (though I doubt they stray too far from things like “orange man bad” or “communism is better than capitalism”).
If you remember, I mocked the Washington Post columnist who argued that “The Lion King” was fascistic. But the difference between someone like that barnacle-head and this one is that this one influences younger generations and molds their minds to what she wants.
Obviously, not everyone she teaches likely will be molded into her very own Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth), but considering how radical-Leftist many college students are, I can see that people like her are a major reason for it.
I’ve long maintained that colleges aren’t places of education but rather indoctrination, as dissent and opposing thought is largely shut down and utterly maligned in most college campuses. When arguments and opposing thought are banned, this is the kind of nonsense that springs up: calling things that have literally nothing to do with racism racist.
If you want to know why half of Millennials are socialists, there is your answer. They are being TAUGHT by professors who find everything racist, including their own skin tone if they are white (and most of them are). They are being molded into communists by these people, not because it makes sense, but because the alternative is not only not taught, but basically banned from colleges and publicly demonized.
Violence against conservatives in college campuses are rather routine and any conservative’s attempt at letting their opinions be heard is more-often-than-not shut down by either other students or even campus faculty and police.
This is the danger of an unchecked and unopposed Left. They dictate what the rules are and what they aren’t. Even progressives aren’t exactly safe, because what used to be considered progressive in the past is not considered “progressive enough” today. You are branded a homophobe, racist Nazi if you oppose transgenderism or pedophilia, even if you support gay marriage.
Even Ellen DeGeneres caught some major heat from radical Leftists for hanging out with former President George W. Bush during a football game. While Bush is hardly a conservative, he is considered a war criminal by the radical Left, so DeGeneres, one of the Left’s biggest stars because she is simultaneously a woman and gay (yes, that’s basically all it takes), is maligned for even trying to be friendly to Bush.
The Left is the epitome of hatred and evil, if these two things don’t make that case enough. To claim a fictional sea sponge is racist just because he lives in a fictional town UNDERNEATH the site of a nuclear test that forced Indigenous people to move because the military didn’t want to nuke them is utterly ridiculous at the least.
It’s crazy that in a website about politics and religion, I am forced to defend SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS from uber-Left lunatics trying their hardest to be “woke”.
May God help the students that this crazy woman teaches and may God help the woman herself, as she clearly is in serious need of the Love of God.
1 Peter 3:9
“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
With the Russian collusion narrative all but six feet under, and with every other “scandal” pushed out by the fake news media flopping more than a fish out of water, the Left’s latest “scandal” has ironically focused on Russia’s rival: Ukraine.
Like with the Russian collusion narrative, Trump was alleged to have tried to collude with Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 Presidential elections via the investigation of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, thereby hurting Biden’s own candidacy. It is also being alleged that Trump threatened Ukraine with withholding foreign aid to the country if they didn’t investigate Hunter and the company he worked for.
However, like with everything else these people spew, that was nothing more than fake news.
With the way the media was talking about it, they made it look like investigating Biden was all that was in Trump’s mind and that he was out to influence in the elections. But the facts point in the other direction completely.
You see, President Donald Trump recently released the full, unclassified transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
What we find in the transcript of the phone call are a couple of things:
First, Trump congratulating Zelensky on his party’s success in a recent Parliamentary election in which they gained quite a bit of power. They talked quite a bit about what they hope to do in the future as far as U.S.-Ukraine relations go, with Zelensky crediting Trump as being an inspiration for Zelensky’s own election victory back in May of this year. Zelensky mentioned his desire to “drain the swamp” present in Ukrainian politics, and the two discussed the relationship Ukraine has with the European Union, which doesn’t seem to be a particularly good one.
The transcript is five pages long and Trump doesn’t begin discussing other matters until the third page.
In that page, he mentions the cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which is connected to the DOJ’s investigation into election interference.
President Trump said the following during the call: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
So what is being said here? Trump is asking Ukraine to look into the whole ordeal surrounding Crowdstrike, which is under investigation by the DOJ as part of Barr's investigation into the origination of the Russian collusion hoax.
As far as Biden goes, to give you some context as to why he is being talked about at all, back in 2016, a top Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Burisma Holdings, a company which employed the former VP’s son as a board member, as well as a firm called Rosemont Seneca, which received monthly transfers of upwards of $166,000 from Burisma between 2014 and 2015.
And Joe Biden himself had bragged about withholding $1 billion in U.S. loans to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Hunter.
Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations that he told then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
It’s truly ironic because one of the allegations the Left had been making about this call that Trump had with Zelensky was that he had a quid pro quo, or a favor granted in exchange for something in return, and that Trump had threatened to withhold money unless they investigate Biden, but in reality, we find that BIDEN himself had committed this type of quid pro quo threat.
All Trump had asked Zelensky to do is to look into the entire ordeal surrounding Crowdstrike, if at all possible. Within the phone call, Trump wasn’t pressuring Zelensky to look into anything. He didn’t threaten Ukraine with withholding funds if they didn’t do something. It was BIDEN who did that back when he was Vice President (and Obama was likely in on it too).
All that was in the phone call was Trump congratulating Zelensky on more election victories, discussing them meeting up in Poland, the U.S. or Ukraine, discussing the economic potential of Ukraine moving forward as an energy independent nation, and looking into Crowdstrike. It wasn't until later on that Trump mentioned the prosecutor who had been fired: "I just want to let you know that's the other thing... There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me," said the President to Zelensky.
The main thing that Trump seemed to have sought was looking into Crowdstrike, with the Biden stuff appearing to be a complete afterthought.
And, by the way, he didn’t have to threaten Ukraine like Biden did. That’s because Trump isn’t a corrupt crook like Joe Biden is or Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) is. Why Sen. Chris Murphy? Because he did something relatively similar to Joe Biden.
The Hill reports that earlier in September, Sen. Chris Murphy told Zelensky not to cooperate with Rudy Giuliani. To Murphy’s own words: “I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President’s campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them.”
Basically, he gave a thinly-veiled threat to President Zelensky not to investigate Hunter Biden in a rather similar manner as Joe did. He was essentially threatening that relations with the two countries could be jeopardized once a Democrat wins the White House if they investigate Hunter Biden and cooperate with Giuliani.
Again, these two Democrats (and others like them) are extremely corrupt.
If you would like to read the transcript yourself, here is the link: https://www.scribd.com/document/427411245/Trump-Zelensky-trancript#from_embed.
Read it for yourself and see what a nothingburger this “scandal” which was used to launch an impeachment inquiry into the President is. Read it and discover just how utterly desperate the Left is to get rid of Trump. There is nothing in it that even points to criminal activity.
And for this, the Democrats wish to impeach him (not that they need much. His very existence triggers them to wish to impeach him). For this absolute fake news nothingburger.
The Democrats thought this would be what ended Trump. Like with everything else they tried, it utterly blew up in their faces.
Let’s see just how crazier these people can get. I have the feeling we’ve just scratched the surface.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
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!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Looking over topics for me to cover, I came across a Daily Caller article with the following title: “Over 90,000 Sign Petition To Rename Street Outside Trump Tower After Obama.”
The article is short, considering there isn’t much to say about this. It covers the fact that over 90,000 people signed the aforementioned petition “in order to spite President Donald Trump,” according to The Daily Caller.
The article says that “[T]he woman behind the petition told Newsweek that she wants to honor Obama because Osama bin Laden was killed by American forces during the Obama administration.” Elizabeth Rowin, the woman behind the petition, went on to say: “I honestly started it as a joke. I saw a comedian joke about how it would make Trump so mad if it was named after former President Obama and thought why not.”
Rowin went on to tell Newsweek that the New York City Council told her they would pursue the project and she intends to write a letter to Mayor Bill de Blasio about it.
While there isn’t an awful lot of detail about this story, considering just how unimportant it is in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit to say about this.
First, I love the fact that Rowin lists bin Laden’s death as the reason for this. It’s almost literally Obama’s only good accomplishment as POTUS. If you asked people to name Obama accomplishments, first and foremost (and quite possibly on its own) would be killing Osama bin Laden. But they would struggle to name other accomplishments. Obamacare is garbage, the economy was horrible when he was in charge, foreign relations were terrible and whatever damage he caused, Trump has been working to fix them.
Even if one were to consider the Iran nuke deal as an Obama accomplishment, that’s been thrown out the window long ago. President Donald Trump is shredding Barack Obama’s legacy and his accomplishments far outweigh and outnumber Obama’s.
And that’s really the irony behind this entire story. Leftists will cheer at the renaming of the street Trump Tower is on after Barack Obama, thinking Trump will fume about it. If he’s half the internet troll (in a good way) that I think he is, he will be delighted about the change.
Why? Because of the symbolism of Trump Tower literally towering over Obama.
Trump can tweet something along the lines of: “So glad New York City changed the name of the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue. A great symbol of my accomplishments (Trump Tower) towering over President Obama’s.”
It would turn the Left’s spiteful intent to rename that street completely against them. There literally would be a massive symbol of Trump’s accomplishments, that being the Trump Tower, being far more important and impressive than Obama’s. At least, that’s what I would say if I were on Trump’s shoes regarding this.
To repeat myself, just about everything Obama did as President of the United States has been eliminated. Obama’s legacy is down to only a few things.
Obamacare is still around, unfortunately, due to either spineless or traitorous Republicans.
The economic stagnation that Obama insisted was “the new normal” for America is far behind us, with record low unemployment across the board, millions of jobs created with Trump’s “magic wand”, the economy growing at 3% annually, paychecks going up, consumer confidence skyrocketing, the cutting of taxes, etc.
The disastrous Iran nuke deal is also gone, at least when it comes to the U.S. funding the world’s lead sponsor of terror.
Relations with North Korea are… peculiar, but not at levels of U.S. bending over backwards to appease them.
ISIS is pretty much destroyed and the last major Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened in late 2017, with the latest Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil happening in January of this year (no fatalities, but one injured in a “lone wolf” ISIS loyalist knife attack against a police officer), according to thereligionofpeace.com, a site that tracks Islamic terrorism among other things.
The U.S. is no longer a part of the Paris Climate Accord, so we are no longer wasting hundreds of millions of dollars fighting a boogey man.
The number of people on food stamps is getting lower and lower as more and more people can afford to pay for their own meals.
The U.S. embassy in Israel is now in Jerusalem, something many of Trump’s predecessors promised they would do but never got around to doing it for various reasons.
And most of these accomplishments are just off the top of my head. I could continue with that, adding smaller accomplishments as well, but these are the ones I wanted to cover. The point of this is to highlight the fact that Donald Trump’s presidency has been the total polar opposite of Obama’s: actually good for the country.
In reality, whether the Left will care to admit it or not, Trump has far more accomplishments than Obama, particularly since Trump’s accomplishments include OVERTURNING OBAMA’S LEGACY. The fact they want to rename the street Trump Tower is on to President Barack H. Obama Avenue shows you how petty these people are, but it could really backfire on them spectacularly.
It wouldn’t be a major story by any means, just one of the many episodes relating to Trump’s Twitter wars with others, but in trying to tick the guy off, they could very well end up just symbolizing Trump towering over Obama. And that’s something I would absolutely love to see, even if it’s mentioned for only a moment.
You just have to love it when the Left dunks on itself.
“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!
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...