​I just love days like today when the Left gives me all the ammo that I could possibly want to utterly and completely humiliate and destroy them with everything that I have. Such an opportunity was given to me when, following the Reade accusations that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her (with her being the eighth woman to come forward to accuse Biden of sexual assault/harassment), the Left switched from their “believe all women” platform to “believe the women who accuse conservatives” platform pretty darn obviously.
 
And nowhere has this switch been more obvious than in a recent New York Times op-ed written by feminist Susan Faludi, who writes: “’Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap.”
 
Yes, apparently, we all were just hallucinating the idea that the Left insisted we should believe each and every woman that would come forward with “her truth” with regards to sexual assault. Apparently, it was just conservatives using that phrase just to attack Joe Biden and whatever other Leftist who got caught in this same sort of trap that the Left tried to set on right-wingers like Kavanaugh and Trump.
 
Apparently, the actual phrase is “believe women”, which is somehow different from “believe all women”. Apparently, the phrase “believe women” is supposed to mean that we take sexual assault claims seriously without throwing away due process and without “reflexively doubting them”, as Jill Filipovic tweeted upon reading the article.
 
It’s worth mentioning the load of crap that this whole thing is.
 
Filipovic, in her tweet, claims that “feminists never said ‘believe all women’ – the right inserted the ‘all’. Feminists said ‘believe women’: that is, start with the assumption that women are telling the truth instead of reflexively doubting them.”
 
Again, that’s a load of crap, not to mention a hilarious attempt at gaslighting. LITERALLY ALL FEMINISTS, WHEN THE METOO MOVEMENT BECAME A THING, STARTED SAYING “BELIEVE ALL WOMEN.” Filipovic either doesn’t remember (how convenient) or is straight-up lying and gaslighting, which is the most likely possibility simply because of the fact that the accusation is being thrown at the Democrats’ last hope of beating Trump in November: Creepy Joe Biden.
 
Let me share with you just a few examples of the many, MANY times feminists and Leftists in general have used the phrase “believe all women.”
 
Let’s begin with a tweet from The View on December 8th, 2017:
 
“’Rapes and sexual harassment are the least-reported crimes in our country because women are afraid they will not be believed and that they will be shamed – and we need to change that!’ Sunny on why she believes it’s essential to believe all women coming forward with allegations.”
 
From Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) on September 26th, 2018, with regards to the Kavanaugh accusations: “We stand with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, & Julie Swetnik. #BelieveAllWomen.”
 
That one in particular is hilarious to me because not only does she use the hashtag that the gaslighting leftists insisted feminists never used, but she is also adding Julie Swetnik, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of being at ten parties where she herself had been “raped”, though she never accused Kavanaugh of doing the “raping”. The reason I find it hilarious is because listening to her story for five minutes is all it takes to recognize how utterly bogus and ridiculous it is, not to mention fairly irrelevant, since she never accused Kavanaugh of partaking in the acts she claims happened in such parties.
 
But regardless of that tangential point, we can clearly see that she is earnestly using the full phrase and unless she’s secretly a right-wing operative or something like that, I guess that’s a case of a LEFTIST, FEMINIST USING THE PHRASE THAT FILIPOVIC INSISTED THEY DIDN’T USE.
 
From NPR: “’Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #MeToo movement – a mantra embraced by some but dismissed by others as naïve. The tension over the credibility of women is nothing new, especially in rape investigations.”
 
And here’s an image from one of the protests regarding the Kavanaugh hearings:

​All it takes to classify a woman as a “survivor” is simply her telling her story, and Tara Reade has told her story extensively to a number of news outlets. All of a sudden, however, we are not to believe ALL “survivors” and women.
 
From the University of Oregon’s Organization Against Sexual Assault: “We must educate young boys on the meaning of consent and instill the value of women’s safety in them from a young age. #BelieveAllWomen #consent #MeToo.”
 
From a Democrat candidate for the North Carolina Senate: “After taking cyberstalking plea deal, WNC’s Rep. Henson to resign. #AboutTime #BelieveAllWomen #endofcorruption #DrainTheSwamp.”
 
From a mental health counselor who could probably use one himself: “This a**hole assumes the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Trump are fake, but I would bet good money he believes Juanita Broaddrick. #BelieveAllWomen.” (Worth mentioning that, upon finding this tweet, I found a reply that read: "That hashtag is a winner. Thank you. I wish other men believed." which cracked me up when I saw it because this woman wrote it at the time the original tweet was made and she 100% meant what she said).
 
Time after time, ever since the phrase was brought up, it has been used by the Left sincerely to attack any political opponents they can use the tactic of accusations against. Whenever a woman came forward with a story of sexual assault, we were to believe she was telling the truth and disparage the man that she was accusing, without hearing his side of the story and without granting presumption of innocence.
 
But now that Joe Biden has been accused for THE EIGHT TIME of some sort of sexual misconduct, even though there is AMPLE evidence of such things from just the pictures I shared in the very FIRST article I wrote discussing the Reade allegations, the response from the Left has been nothing short of a betrayal of the standards they had been trying to set for the last couple of years.
 
When it’s one of THEIR OWN who is being credibly accused of sexual assault, they either bury the story (like they had been trying to do with the SEVEN other women who came forward to accuse him) or they attack and disparage the accuser, accusing her of lying for Trump’s political benefit or simply being an affront to “progress”.
 
And the most hilarious part of all of it is that the argument they are trying to use, that the phrase should be “believe women”, not “believe all women”, doesn’t work because both signify the same thing.
 
There is no significant difference between “believe women” and “believe all women.” The “all” is IMPLIED in the former! Tara Reade is still a woman. The phrase they apparently believe should be used is “believe women” WHICH STILL APPLIES TO HER!
 
These idiots can’t even gaslight us right! They are arguing for a distinction without a difference! Even if they were right about feminists never having used the latter term, which is 100% wrong, as I just demonstrated, their argument STILL wouldn’t suffice to discredit Reade. She is still a woman and they are still insisting that women be believed.
 
And the argument that we don’t “reflexively doubt” the woman making the allegations is still ridiculous because NO ONE reflexively doubts women making allegations. What we do is not rob the person being accused of their presumption of innocence while still taking the woman’s allegations with the seriousness it deserves, if it deserves it at all. Accusations like the one from Blasey Ford or any of the other Kavanaugh accusers barely deserved any seriousness because of the fact that NONE of them brought forth any evidence of such misconduct from Kavanaugh.
 
Ford accused him DECADES after the incident happened. And unlike Reade, who waited almost as long to come forward with her story, Ford never told anyone about what supposedly happened when it supposedly happened. Reade told her mother, brother and those close to her soon after she was allegedly assaulted by Biden. CNN tried to delete a video of a phone call Reade’s mother made to Larry King’s show to talk about it, showing that Reade indeed told her mother around the time that the incident occurred.
 
Ford came forward with her accusation only when Kavanaugh was about to be the newest Supreme Court Justice and she never told anyone about what happened until the time she made the accusation. And the witnesses she brought forth either did not corroborate her story or outright REFUTED her story.
 
And keep in mind, Ford was THE MOST CREDIBLE out of all of Kavanaugh’s accusers. Each of the accusers that came forth after Ford were less and less credible, up to Swetnik, who sounded like a loon because she repeatedly attended parties held by the same people she accused of raping girls in those parties.
 
We didn’t not believe Ford because we “reflexively” doubt women coming forward with sexual assault allegations. We didn’t believe Ford because HER STORY WAS FULL OF HOLES, SHE KEPT CHANGING IT, SHE NEVER TOLD ANYONE BEFORE COMING FORWARD, SHE HAD NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND WAS VISIBLY TRAINED BY ALYSSA MILANO ON HOW TO ACT LIKE AN INNOCENT GIRL IN FRONT OF A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HALF OF WHOM WERE DEMOCRATS WITH AN AGENDA LIKE SHE WAS.
 
And that last part was the most important one, because it’s easily provable. A video from September of last year showed Blasey Ford’s attorney “telling attendees at a feminist conference that her client’s testimony against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade,” according to Newsweek. So it is painfully obvious that the ONLY reason Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault wasn’t because he did it but because he posed a threat to their paganistic and satanic desire to KILL THEIR OWN CHILDREN SHOULD THEY PLEASE.
 
Meanwhile, Reade has far more going for her story being true than Ford ever did and Reade is, herself, a Democrat who in all likelihood hates Trump’s guts, so she has far less of a reason to come forward with accusations because of politics.
 
In all of this, keep in mind the one and ONLY reason the Left is saying the things they are saying: the target of these accusations is Joe Biden. If Tara Reade had accused Trump of sexual assault, even if she didn’t bring with her any sort of evidence or witnesses, she would be celebrated and treated like a QUEEN, much like Ford was. But because she is accusing Joe Biden, the rules of engagement have to be changed.
 
All of a sudden, the phrase the Left adopted when attacking political opponents, “believe all women” became so problematic that some of their members believed they should gaslight everyone and claim no feminist ever actually used it, when they very clearly did.
 
All of a sudden, that phrase is a “right-wing trap”, not because the Left has never used it but because it can be used against them by the Right.
 
So, they ignore the standards they set for other people as soon as they are used against them. Not the first time it’s happened; won’t be the last. But it is always glorious to see karma biting them in the rear and people trying to get them to operate under the rules THEY set.
 
2 Thessalonians 2:3
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I could probably write about many instances in which a Leftist has been a hypocrite (and I, indeed, have written many) because hypocrisy is simply part of the Left’s genetic code. However, this one, I believe, is particularly egregious given the times that we currently have to live in.
 
Despite the media’s adoration of both Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio (though I won’t really talk about him here, only pointing him out because he was as much of a disaster as Cuomo and was getting great publicity because of the “D” next to his name), it is an objective fact that both of these idiots have done things that have hurt their states, both in terms of the timing of their response (they shut down considerably after California did, despite being an early hotspot) and their actual response and decisions surrounding the Chinese coronavirus.
 
But focusing strictly on Cuomo, allow me to get to point of what is Cuomo’s worst policy in all of this and the egregious reasoning behind it, and that is Gov. Cuomo’s order of sending SICK AND VULNERABLE virus patients to NURSING HOMES WHERE THERE ARE OTHER HIGHLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
 
On March 25th, Cuomo issued a state mandate which required nursing homes to admit suspected or diagnosed cases of the coronavirus. This idiotic mandate also “prohibited nursing homes from requiring a coronavirus test for incoming hospital transfers,” according to TownHall.
 
In essence, despite the fact that President Trump gave Cuomo every advantage in fighting the virus in approving a temporary hospital at New York City’s Javitz Center and sent a hospital ship with medical supplies and for treating people to the state, Cuomo opted to send sick people to the places where the most vulnerable populations live: nursing and retirement homes.
 
Either Cuomo is the biggest moron in the world or he did this very much on purpose, knowing what it would lead to.
 
In defense of his idiotic-at-best decision, Cuomo said: “We worked it out so we always had available beds. Nobody was deprived of a bed or medical coverage in any way. And still, people died. Still, people died. Older people, vulnerable people are going to die from this virus. That is going to happen despite whatever you do. Because with all our progress as a society, we can’t keep everyone alive.”
 
A couple things to note here. First, and most importantly, this is outright sick. It’s not untrue, but the way he put it is sickening and insensitive.
 
It’s the same mentality that Italy had when the virus was first ravaging that country, where they would just allow the elderly to die in order to save supplies for the younger people. It’s a death-panel mentality, not unlike that which the Nazis have employed in the past.
 
Second, this is extremely hypocritical because of comments he made on April 22nd, when he was asked about reopening the state because people needed to work.
 
To give some context, in that press conference, a reporter asked Cuomo: “Protesters outside right now honking their horns, they’re raising signs. These are regular people. They’re not getting a paycheck. Some of them are not getting their unemployment money. And they’re saying they don’t have time to wait for all this testing. They need to get back to work. They have to feed their families. Their savings are running out. They don’t have another week, Governor. They’re not getting answers. So their point is, this cure cannot be worse than the illness itself. What’s your response to that?”
 
Cuomo responded: “The illness is death. What is worse than death?”
 
Now, the illness itself isn’t death, as 98% of people recover. It’s far from a death sentence for most people. Want to know who are the few for whom it basically is? THE ELDERLY WHOM CUOMO HAS NO PROBLEM SEEING DIE, APPARENTLY!
 
See, this is the hypocrisy of Cuomo. The guy was adamant about not reopening the state, regardless of the crippling financial problems that fall on people when an economy gets shut down, because he believed the illness is death itself. But now, he justifies his decision to send people with the illness, which is death itself, according to him, to those who are most at risk and he has no problem with that at all.
 
So you have to ask: why would he order such a thing? If he believed that “the illness is death”, then why send people with this death illness to people who are most at risk to die from this death illness?
 
Back in April, Cuomo made a big deal about the illness being death and how we needed to be careful, and now, it’s passé. It’s perfectly fine that people died of the death illness and it’s perfectly justified because people die anyway, it seems.
 
Again, it’s hypocritical. Yeah, people are going to die anyway, but then why wouldn’t he have thought of that when it came to reopening the state? His argument for not letting the state reopen was that people were going to die if he allowed that. Now, he finds it perfectly acceptable that people died because of his mandate?
 
A noticeable portion of New York’s deaths are from nursing home infections. What’s worse is the fact that around March 3rd, the New York State Department of Health changed its disclosure procedures to only report coronavirus deaths from nursing home patients if they physically died in the nursing home, according to TowhHall. Meaning that if any patient who contracted the virus inside the nursing home died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, in a hospital itself, or simply outside a nursing home’s premises, then that didn’t count as a nursing home death, artificially lowering the number of such deaths in the official books.
 
Cuomo got so much backlash for his March 25th mandate that he made subtle changes to make things look better than they actually were and officially rescinded the order on May 11.
 
His state order is more disastrous than the actual numbers show, is what I’m getting at.
 
And in all of this, the guy is actually trying to defend his actions as “everyone dies eventually and there’s no helping it”, which is not necessarily the case here. Yes, everyone dies eventually, but Cuomo’s actions are directly responsible for the deaths of so many elderly New Yorkers, which did not have to happen and possibly would not have happened without such a mandate. Maybe they would have died without the mandate still, but with it, they were basically guaranteed to it. The illness itself wasn’t a death sentence for them. Cuomo’s orders basically were.
 
Cuomo put elderly people directly in harm’s way and defended it as saying “everyone dies someday.” By that logic, the Holocaust, 9/11 and LITERALLY ALL HUMAN ATROCITIES can be defended because “everyone dies someday”.
 
It’s an insanely stupid and disgusting argument for a guy who I think knows he messed up badly but is trying to save face. “I didn’t mess up! Everyone dies eventually! Who cares if what I did was directly responsible for this when death is an eventuality!?”
 
The guy literally has no actual defense and the one he is trying to use is the worst one he could bring up: nihilistic apathy. Again, by this logic, you could defend reopening the state because people were going to die anyway, and yet, he felt it would’ve been a massive risk to do so precisely because of the deaths.
 
The response to this virus from Governor Andrew Cuomo (and de Blasio) is the perfect example of what not to do during a time of crisis. Simply put, you don’t put one of the most vulnerable populations directly in harm’s way. When you do, you get a sizeable portion of people in that demographic dying off and the numbers show it (and again, the numbers should actually be a bit worse because of the May 3rd change).
 
Cuomo has been an abject disaster for the State of New York, not that I expect anything to change in the future.
 
Proverbs 16:18
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is rare for us to see blue-on-blue crime, so to speak, but boy is it a joy when we do. Recently, Michael Moore produced and released a movie attacking the environmentalist movement (without departing from the overall insane ideologies it espouses) as being ineffective in the way it attempts to “fight” climate change.
 
Without going too much into detail, the movie talks about the inefficiencies of current “green energy” alternatives to fossil fuel as being just as, if not more, environmentally unfriendly as fossil fuels. However, Michael Moore’s ultimate solution isn’t to abandon the ridiculous and actually insane movement or to undo the damages it has caused. Rather, it is to go down the route of eugenics and espousing heavy population control to mitigate the amount of people that can affect the environment.
 
This, even in the eyes of a wacko environmentalist, is asinine. Not only is it asinine, but racist, according to George Monbiot, who wrote an entire Twitter thread to explain his reasoning (and he also wrote about the movie in a UK Guardian article, which I will cover in a moment).
 
The Twitter thread is quite lengthy so bear with me.
 
“Prompted by the shocking falsehoods in Planet of the Humans, this thread asks why so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth. The conclusion will enrage some people, but I think it’s unavoidable. Let’s take this step by step,” began Monbiot.
 
“There’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of many issues about which we should be concerned. But the global impact is much smaller than a lot of people imagine.”
 
“Undoubtedly, rising human numbers can have important local effects: pressure on housing, green space, wildlife, water quality etc. And it’s essential that all women have full reproductive choice, full control over their own bodies and full access to family planning.”
 
Ah, yes, good to see the Leftist shilling out for Leftist women by loudly proclaiming a right that they definitely do not have: the right to kill their own children should they please. Even though the originator of American abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was the very eugenicist that Monbiot seemingly dislikes, as he makes note in one of the tweets in this thread. And we will get back to Sanger in just a moment.
 
“But I see population growth repeatedly blamed as THE MAIN CAUSE of climate breakdown and other global issues. This is flat wrong.”
 
“There’s something else to note. The great majority of the world’s population growth is happening in countries where most people are black or brown.”
 
“So why do so many people in the rich world (the great majority of whom, in my experience, are male, white and quite affluent) insist, often furiously, that the ‘real’ global issue, the ‘elephant in the room,’ is population growth?”
 
“The first part of the answer is deflection. Blaming other people for your own impacts is a familiar means of avoiding responsibility and shedding feelings of guilt. But why point to the birth rates of the poorest people? Why not to consumption by billionaires?”
 
“It’s clear to me that generalized deflection is an insufficient answer. This is a particular variety of deflection. What we see is white people pointing the finger at black and brown people, saying ‘It’s not us. It’s Them’.”
 
“In different ways, this has been happening for a long time. Throughout the colonial era and after, the rich nations portrayed themselves as the ‘civilized’, virtuous actors, while their colonial subjects were ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate.’”


“There was – and is – a long-standing moral panic about the reproduction rates of these ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate’ people. If something was not done, ‘They’ would overwhelm ‘Us’. The human species would decline as ‘inferior’ people took over.”
 
“It was this terror of being ‘outbred’, ‘outnumbered’, ‘diluted’ that inspired the eugenics movement. A similar set of claims persists to this day, and is popular among white supremacists. It’s called Replacement Theory.”
 
I agree! But then, why does Monbiot still adhere to the ridiculous beliefs of the pro-abortion movement? The movement was SPAWNED BY THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND IS NOTHING BUT EUGENICS ITSELF. According to an article on Arizona Capitol Times, quoting a 2011 CDC report on Abortion Surveillance, “black women make up 14% of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country.”
 
And if you remember, I talked about how the NAACP has long stopped caring about black people because of their support for Planned Parenthood. In that article, I mentioned how abortion was the leading cause of death for black people, 1,800 black babies are aborted every day, 52% of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and that “79% of [PP’s] surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
 
So why does this guy openly abhor the practice of eugenics, yet at the same time, claim to support “women’s rights” to practice such eugenics? The guy either is ignorant of the eugenics that is abortion or is a hypocrite.
 
But moving on, Monbiot reaches his conclusion:
 
“So what is the disturbing conclusion to this thread? The answer to my question – ‘why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ – is… racism.”
 
“I’m not saying this to cause offense. I’m saying it because it appears to be the most likely and parsimonious explanation of a bizarre phenomenon: affluent people with enormous impacts pointing the finger at poor people with tiny impacts.”
 
“Nor am I claiming that most of those who over-emphasize population are intentional racists. I think it is possible to entertain subconscious racist beliefs without actively wishing to discriminate against people of color.”
 
In short, his reasoning behind the affluent white people’s desire to control population growth is racism, be it intentional or not. I agree, but let’s not get things twisted here. Only ONE side of the political spectrum espouses such beliefs. Only ONE side advocates for eugenics of abortion and population control. Only THE LEFT believes in controlling populations for “the environment” (though we know perfectly well it’s for control and power as part of their communist ideal).
 
The rich, white liberal is the one that wishes to control population sizes wherever it might see fit. It’s no surprise, then, that a rich (for the time), white liberal by the name of Margaret Sanger once wrote to her friend Clarence Gamble that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
 
THE LEFT has idealized means of controlling various populations, be it through slavery, economic welfare (like today), abortion (like today) or other population control measures. Which is why it’s so funny to read the following from Monbiot:
 
In his lambasting review of Moore’s film, Monbiot writes: “When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, ‘it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far-right loves this film.”
 
“Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarch power, capitalism.”
 
As I said, it is THE LEFT that espouses the eugenic belief of population control, not the Right or the “far-right.” Wanna know why the “far-right” likes Moore’s film? Because it DESTROYS the environmentalist movement’s arguments towards “clean” energy that isn’t clean whatsoever. Moore, in that film, said what the RIGHT has been saying for DECADES. Moore’s solution, however, is not something any conservative would want and is something only a LEFTIST would agree with, even if not this particular Leftist in question.
 
Again, the LEFT has been espousing and practicing the belief of eugenics. To blame CAPITALISM for a NATURAL occurrence of climate change is asinine. Don’t forget, the guy was discussing things in terms of anthropogenic climate change being real and being a problem. It isn’t. It’s a hoax. Climate change happens because ours is a dynamic climate. But we do not affect the climate at any rate, let alone at the rate that the environmentalist wackos claim we do. Which is another reason as to why we ABHOR population control, because it’s an inefficient non-solution to a non-existent problem that only leads to death and desolation, no matter the population being targeted.
 
But regardless, I am always happy to see some blue-on-blue fighting. Wrong as I may believe both are to different extents, it’s good to see this happen whenever it does.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Two Fridays ago, Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” with Mika Brzezinski (who, as I said in the article talking about it, did a pretty decent job) to speak about the allegation made by Tara Reade that he sexually assaulted her. Just appearing and addressing the allegations, denying them outright, made the Women’s March, which had previously been calling for Joe to address it with seriousness, perfectly satisfied and content with his answer.
 
We already knew how much of a joke the Women’s March was, but this is pathetic, even for them, though not unexpected. The Women’s March is nothing short of a Leftist political hack group aimed at targeting and destroying conservatives through accusations of sexual assault. Whenever one of their own is accused, however, a simple denial of the allegations is enough, when the same denial is seen as insufficient or even as an outright lie when done by the Right.
 
To remind you, this is the same organization that gave birth to the phrase “believe all women,” so that’s why this is particularly pathetic. They should change it to “believe all women (who accuse conservatives, but not the ones who accuse our guys)”.
 
In any case, following Joe’s interview and denial of the accusations, the Women’s March tweeted: “We are glad to see Joe Biden take a step in addressing this issue head-on. This is what is necessary to create a culture where survivors can come forward without fear of reprisal. We’ve come a long way on this, but still have a long way to go. Only Joe Biden can speak to his past, and we are glad he has begun to do so with his statement. It’s not on survivors or women to answer for him.”
 
What a load of crap. First of all, it took him FIVE WEEKS to address the issue. He had hoped his buddies in the corrupt fake news media would do the dirty work for him and not cover the allegation, hoping it would go away on its own. Ultimately, he couldn’t do that and when he realized it (or was told it), he decided to talk about it five weeks after the fact when there was mounting pressure to talk about it.
 
Second, is that really helpful for a culture of survivors coming forward without fear of reprisal? Funny, because Joe Biden, in 1993, ultimately FIRED Reade after she had made a formal complaint about him (and I will talk about this in a moment). She faced reprisal. Joe’s actions do not speak of a man who is sorry for what he did. He has tried EVERYTHING to hide what he did, which is why the following from the Women’s March is so ironic:
 
In a separate statement, the group says that they take women’s “allegations seriously” and that Biden “modeled” what a proper response to this sort of accusation should be because he allowed “for a fair inquiry of the facts to be conducted by journalists or other investigative bodies without interference.”
 
Again I say: what a load of crap. He has denied access to his Senate papers which are in the hands of the University of Delaware. If you were to find the complaint by Tara Reade about his sexual assault, it would be there, and Biden knows it and is denying people access to it. The Women’s March is flat-out LYING to protect their guy because they know that he is indefensible but they need someone to go against Trump. Speaking of which, the idiots actually think this puts them in A BETTER POSITION to win in 2020:
 
“To those concerned about what this means for the election: By addressing these allegations, we are improving our chances of winning in 2020. As we saw in 2018, when women are respected and empowered, we turn out in force.”
 
Yeah, right. Biden looks EVEN MORE GUILTY in the way that he addressed the allegations, as I said in my article’s very title.
 
It’s extremely ironic, but not surprising, that the Women’s March would sidle up to Biden simply by him denying the allegations. They did not offer Kavanaugh the same grace by any stretch of the imagination, even though Blasey Ford had NOTHING to corroborate her story. Even the witnesses she brought up CHALLENGED her story, either not remembering the house party or outright refuting the allegations made by Ford, and still, these dishonest hacks decided to believe her.
 
Meanwhile, here I am offering SEVEN pieces that corroborate Tara Reade’s story of her being sexually assaulted by Joe Biden in 1993 (though this won’t do anything to convince anyone on the Left, that’s for certain).
 
First, we have Lynda LaCasse, who was a former neighbor of Reade’s in the mid-90s. In an interview with Business Insider’s Rich McHugh, who helped Ronan Farrow break the Harvey Weinstein story, LaCasse said: “This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it.” LaCasse explained that in 1995 or 96, Reade had told her of what had happened, saying: “I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him. And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.”
 
That aligns with Reade’s own story, which she told numerous sources, including Business Insider, that Joe Biden pushed her up against a wall and sexually assaulted her with his fingers.
 
LaCasse continued: “[Reade] was crying. She was upset. And the more she talked about it, the more she started crying. I remember saying that she needed to file a police report. I don’t remember all the details. I remember the skirt. I remember the fingers. I remember she was devastated.”
 
And if you think she’s just some “conservative operator” or something, she admits to McHugh that she’s not only a “very strong Democrat” but also that she’s “for Biden,” indicating an intention to vote for him regardless of this story (which honestly repulses me, but whatever).
 
This is a Biden supporter and even she is acknowledging that Reade’s story is true and that it needs to be more than fully addressed.
 
Second, there’s Lorraine Sanchez, who told Business Insider (in the same article where LaCasse's interview happened) that she “worked with Reade in the office of a California state senator in the mid-‘90s… that she recalls Reade complaining at the time that her former boss in Washington, D.C., had sexually harassed her, and that she had been fired after raising concerns.”
 
She said that “[Reade said] she had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in D.C. and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.”
 
Third, Collin Moulton, who is Reade’s younger brother. McHugh also spoke to Moulton and in those conversations with him and another person (Sanchez), he says that “they struck me as extremely credible.”
 
McHugh states: “I drilled down with the details of the story, and they matched up with her story, with Tara’s story.”
 
Fourth, there is one anonymous corroborating witness, who confirmed Reade had told her about the sexual assault at the time and McHugh also found her to be “extremely credible.”
 
Fifth, another anonymous corroborating witness, who says she was a former intern under Reade in Biden’s Senate office at the time. She says she was not told of the incident, “but [the witness] said… in mid-April of 1993, Tara was abruptly no longer her supervisor. So the timing matches exactly with what Tara was saying.”
 
Sixth, there is the 1993 videotape of Reade’s mother calling CNN’s Larry King on his show to ask for advice. According to The Intercept, the same source that first covered Reade’s story, “In interviews with The Intercept, Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to ‘Larry King Live’ on CNN, during which she made reference to her daughter’s experience on Capitol Hill. Reade told The Intercept that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade, then in her 20s, left Biden’s office.”
 
Obviously, CNN would never try to let people know about the tape and actively tried to hide it, erasing the episode of Larry King’s show where the call took place from their archives, but you know what they say: “what’s on the Internet is forever,” and an everyday Joe (not that Joe) found it after listening to the Katie Halper podcast. Here is the transcript of that call:
 
King: “San Luis Obispo, California, hello.”
 
Caller: “Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”
 
King: “In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?”
 
Caller: “That’s true.”
 
Personally, I don’t think it was “out of respect” for Biden, but out of fear, that she didn’t go to the press over it. I don’t know Reade or what she was thinking at the time, but I do know that, if I were a woman and were sexually assaulted by a prominent Senator (or anyone, really), regardless of who that person is and regardless of whether or not I previously respected that person dearly and whether or not I agreed with his political views, I would not have a shred of respect for that person after the fact. But I would have fear, and that, I think, was the driving force behind Reade not telling her story at the time.
 
She was younger and she didn’t want to challenge a powerful figure, whom she admired and respected and agreed with. But Reade’s mother’s story, the little that she told with the few details she provided, aligns with the events that took place in Reade’s life, down to the timing of it all.
 
And finally, we have the seventh piece, which is the most convincing piece of corroborating evidence we have so far. Yeah, if you thought the others were decent enough, then take a look at court documents from 1996, filed by one Mr. Theodore Dronen, Reade’s ex-husband, in fighting a restraining order she filed during his and Reade’s divorce:
 
“I met [Reade] in the spring of 1993 while working in Washington D.C. At the early stages of our dating, [Reade] felt comfortable confiding in me as we both worked for members of Congress. On several occasions, [Reade] related a problem that she was having at work, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office. It was obvious that this event had a very traumatic effect on [Reade], and that she is still sensitive and effected [sic] by it today.”
 
Dronen noted that her “traumatic” experiences while working for Biden had tainted her “perception and judgment.”
 
There could well be another piece of corroborating evidence in the form of her harassment complaint, but that would be found in Biden’s Senate papers, which as I have said, are in the hands of the University of Delaware and Biden has denied people access to them, except for members of his own team (who will likely “lose” the papers regarding Reade, or at least, the complaint specifically, and claim they never found any such complaint).
 
All of this only makes the Women’s March statement and tweet look all the worse because Reade had FAR MORE evidence against Biden than Blasey Ford ever could have hoped to have against Kavanaugh and yet they choose to believe Biden when he just DENIES the allegation, as though what he says is Gospel.
 
Here’s hoping that more evidence comes forward of what Joe Biden did to Reade (and the seven other women who have accused him of sexual harassment/assault) and that Biden eventually finds himself in the very jail he would ironically want other accused men to be in.
 
Joe Biden deserves to go to the big house, not the White House.
 
Romans 2:6-8
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

CNN, the most laughable name in news, has recently been trending thanks to a viral clip of a segment showing CNN host Don Lemon, far-Left opinion writer Wajahat Ali and Never Trump traitor Rick Wilson mocking and insulting Trump supporters’ intelligence, education and even insinuating that we are illiterate.
 
Speaking about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his altercation with a Left-wing NPR reporter who lied to Pompeo and broke an off-the-record agreement the two of them had and he asked her to identify Ukraine on a map (she couldn’t), the three stooges made sure to back the Left-wing NPR reporter and lambast not only Pompeo, but Trump and everyone who supports him.
 
Covering the most relevant parts for this article, Rick Wilson eventually said: “[Pompeo] also knows deep in his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it. He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world, and so that’s partly him playing to their base and playing to their audience, you know, credulous boomer demo that back Donald Trump, that wants to think that Donald Trump’s a smart one, and y’all – y’all elitists are dumb.”
 
Ali continued with the mockery: “You elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling even though –“ and he was interrupted by Wilson continuing his own mockery: “Your math, your reading.”
 
Throughout all this, of course, Don Lemon is laughing his butt off, finding it extremely hilarious to mock people in a very elitist way (with zero sense of self-awareness of their elitist mockery).
 
Now, I am not the least bit surprised to see people with darkness filling their hearts mocking Trump and his administration and his supporters. These are people who, at the same time, will “call for unity” while lambasting the side that does not agree with everything they have to say. These are people who honestly believe the b.s. they sell to their audience and could not properly identify how many genders there are, all-the-while flaunting Harvard and Yale degrees like they are worthwhile treasures that only the best of the best are able to obtain and as though they should be revered as gods for having such “education” (even though college is more for indoctrination).
 
I am not surprised one bit by this, because this is far from the first time CNN has decided to show pure, unadulterated hatred for those whom they honestly despise and wish they could rid the world of. I’ve already written an entire article dedicated to how much of a hypocritical slime ball Don Lemon is for, in the same breath, calling for an end to “demonizing” others and proceeding to demonize others. I’ve also covered another segment in which Lemon and other guests on his show mocked Kanye West shortly after demonstrating he supported Trump by saying that “Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read.”
 
Don Lemon has a long history of being a hypocritical, hateful idiot who either piles onto the hate or laughs at the face of it. I can guarantee that if a segment on Fox News had done this about Obama supporters in the Midwest, there would be a full nuclear meltdown about it, with everyone involved in that segment being forced to apologize, alongside the entire network, and with petitions to take Fox News off the air.
 
But because this is about them “dumb” Trump supporters who “can’t read, can’t spell, can’t find countries on maps” (btw, a Morning Consult poll back in the beginning of the year asked people to identify Iran on a map and only 27% of Democrats could find it, as opposed to 28% of Republicans and 31% of Independents, so who is it really that can’t find countries on maps?), “can’t do math, and are so intellectually-deficient as to subject themselves to vote for Trump”, it is perfectly acceptable to throw by the wayside any semblance of tolerance or love or compassion that they claim to have for others and it is perfectly acceptable that such people get this kind of treatment from a major news organization that really can’t afford to play so loosely with their ratings.
 
The people that profess tolerance display none of it. The people that claim to be professionals showcase their unprofessionalism. The people who swear they are bearers of truth spew lies and slander about others. The people who claim to want to “save America” show their true hatred for it and those who even might slightly dissent from their collective thought. The people that claim to hold valuable knowledge and superior intelligence will deny science and spout science fiction all for the sake of an agenda where the Democrat Party gets more and more power and these idiots somehow think they will have some share in that.
 
Again, I am not at all surprised that the network that ran the Russian hoax for two and a half years, still pretty much does, and continues to lie about Trump and Ukraine, would, once again, display their utter contempt for those that refuse to vote as they do. When hatred fills your heart, this is what you tend to do: display it for all to see. They just think there are enough people out there who absolutely agree with them and are laughing with them at Trump supporters that it’s perfectly okay to do this and they would suffer zero repercussions.
 
They hate Donald Trump, they hate you, they hate what you stand for and, in all likelihood, even if they never admit it, would agree with the Bernie supporters in the Project Veritas videos about sending Trump supporters off to “re-education camps”. Their viewpoints are so fragile that they cannot stand that there are those who disagree and display that contempt with mockery and open hatred, with some honestly wishing in their hearts that we would get sent to concentration camps to be “re-educated” or killed if we do not comply.
 
This, alongside many other reasons (primarily abortion) is why I say the Left is satanic and the Democrat Party is the party of Satan. The hate that they foster in their hearts comes from Lucifer himself and they do his bidding happily. Any notion that Jesus might be able to save them is met with an allergic reaction from these people, coupled with even more mockery.
 
The good news for them is that if Saul of Tarsus, who went around looking for Christians to persecute and execute, can be saved, then there is a possibility that these people might as well. I often note the doctrine of predestination (which some Christians do not believe in, but I assure you, there is plenty about it in the Bible) and how God chooses to save some. That doctrine, I believe, is very much sound and applicable, but God is the only one who knows whom He will save and whom He will not save. He is the only one who decides on whom His mercy will be shown and on whom it will not.
 
This is why I do not necessarily say that any one of these Leftists, on an individual basis, is destined for Hell. They are, currently in their unsaved states, Hell-bound, but God chooses whom He will save and He might save one or two or all three of them at one point or another. Is it likely? Not from what I can tell, but it definitely is possible with God. Again, Saul of Tarsus, who was essentially an elitist like these people in his own time (possibly the most highly educated person of his time) went around in search of Christians to arrest and prosecute, which would often lead to death and the Lord Jesus came to him and saved his soul, later becoming an extremely important apostle (having written almost half of the books in the New Testament) and changing his name to Paul.
 
If one were to make comparisons, that would be like Jesus converting a Nazi brownshirt in search of Jews (sort of). If Saul could be saved, just about anyone could be as well. That doesn’t mean that they will be saved, as again, God is the one to make that decision and is not going to leave people’s salvation up to chance (which, as I have said many times in the past, is nothing more than mathematical probability and does not have any inherent power), but it does mean that they might be.
 
Right now, of course, as far as Don Lemon, Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali go, I cannot tell what is in their hearts (apart from hatred) or what lays for them in the future. However, I do hope and pray that they will be saved by the Lord and they will turn from their hatred. I pray this, not because they deserve the Lord’s forgiveness, grace or mercy, because they do not, but because it would be better for them to turn to God than continue down the path they are on. It can be hard to love your enemies (and this is something I often have trouble with), but we are still commanded to do so. We are to love our neighbors and our enemies, praying for them that they might turn to the Lord for their salvation.
 
This does not take away from the unprofessionalism and the vile display of hatred that they showed on live television. That should be totally rebuked and excoriated and I believe Trump will make a campaign ad out of it (at least, he should) to remind everyone what the elitist Left thinks of us. But beyond anything else, we should at least pray for their souls to be saved and for their hearts to be turned to the Lord, away from the hatred of Satan and towards the love of God. Will it happen? Only God knows and only God decides.
 
Acts 2:38
“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The economy is doing fantastic and the President is enjoying great unemployment numbers, so much so that he even created a job opening for Iran’s Major General last week. Unfortunately, one should expect there to be one less job out there because whoever thought of making comedian Ricky Gervais the host of the 2020 Golden Globe awards has probably been fired at this point.
 
What am I talking about? Well, while I did not care to watch the actual award show (largely because I don’t much care for what 99% of these celebrities were going to say on them, which ended up proving Gervais’ point), many on Twitter shared videos and clips of Gervais hosting the award show and absolutely throttling the Hollywood elites that frequent such events.
 
Gervais slammed the Hollywood elites for politicizing absolutely everything, saying “You know nothing about the real world.” He also went on to say: “Apple roared into the TV game with ‘The Morning Show,’ a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweat shops in China. So, well, you say you’re woke, but the companies you work for – I mean, unbelievable, Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service, you would call your agent, wouldn’t you? So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech, right? You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So, if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god, and f**k off. No one cares about your views on politics or culture.”
 
As I said, Ricky Gervais told the Hollywood elites present at the event what the rest of America wishes we could tell them (though with less swearing, for some of us, but the sentiment is about right). These are the very people who openly wish to harm the President of the United States (look at George Lopez replying to the Iranian’s offer of assassinating Trump for $80 million by saying “we’ll do it for half”, or look at Robert de Niro often expressing how he would like to punch Trump or throw feces at him) and who believe any belief in the God of the Bible is an affront to “human progress” and is inherently racist and bigoted and hateful by nature. They believe that if you love this country, you are an ignorant fool at best and a racist fascist at worst (often the latter) and someone who either ignores or agrees with the injustices of the past (while they themselves both profit off this country’s system and ignore the injustices of other countries, such as the fact that Iran publicly executes, often in a gruesome manner, homosexuals aka the people these dinguses are supposed to be supporting).
 
No one watches a movie hoping to get lectured about a topic the people making the movie have no clue about. Entertainment is supposed to offer some sort of escape from the troubles of the real world, not bring those troubles to the forefront and accuse the viewer of wittingly or unwittingly contributing to them.
 
And yet, these people do not heed these words, not even on the actual award show. One actress, who ironically was visibly pregnant, gave a speech about a woman’s "right" to choose to kill her own baby and that she wouldn’t have made it in Hollywood if she hadn’t had an abortion, which is total b.s., but signifies the heartless and selfish nature of these people. Another one tried to lecture people about climate change and about how her home country, Australia, was on fire because of climate change (the fires were caused by arson, not climate change, but what’s the truth to stop anyone from getting the opportunity to feel self-righteous and lambast people for “not doing enough” about climate change, despite the fact that she, herself, most likely doesn’t do diddly squat about it either, even if something actually could be done about it?)
 
But regardless, Ricky Gervais didn’t stop there. As the host, he got plenty of opportunity to speak and he took full advantage. He said the following:
 
“Tonight isn’t just about the people in front of the camera. In this room are some of the most important TV and film executives in the world, people from every background, but they all have one thing in common: they’re all terrified of Ronan Farrow.”
 
To refresh your memories, Ronan Farrow is a journalist (the son of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow) who helped uncover the sexual abuses of Harvey Weinstein against actresses and other women in Hollywood, which sparked the “#MeToo” movement (before it, too, quickly got heavily politicized and taken over by the Left to attack any and all men, regardless of any wrongdoing or lack thereof having been committed).
 
He continued: “He’s coming for you. He’s coming for you. Look, talking of all you perverts, it was a big year, it was a big year for pedophile movies, Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Never Land, Two Popes. [audience groans] Shut up, shut up, I don’t care, I don’t care.”
 
“No one cares about movies anymore, no one goes to the cinema, no one watches network TV. Everyone’s watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going ‘Well done, Netflix, you win everything. Good night’.”
 
“But no, we drag it out three hours, you could binge watch the entire first season of ‘Afterlife’ instead of watching this show. That’s a show about a man who wants to kill himself because his wife dies of cancer and it’s still more fun than this. Okay, spoiler alert, season two is on the way, so in the end obviously he didn’t kill himself – just like Jeffrey Epstein.”
 
While some in the crowd laughed at the joke, there were audible groans at that, to which Gervais replied: “Shut up, I know he’s your friend, but I don’t care. You had to make your own way here, your own plane, didn’t you?”
 
At one point, he also took some jabs at the celebrities present and those who could not make it there: “You all look lovely all dolled up, you came here in your limos. I came here in a limo and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. It’s her daughter I feel sorry for. That must be the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to her. And her dad was in ‘Wild Hogs,’ so…”
 
Gervais also added: “Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and, by the end, his date was too old for him. Even Prince Andrew is like, ‘Come on Leo, mate. You’re nearly 50.’”
 
In essence, Gervais points out not only the utter ignorance of Hollywood and their hypocrisy, but also the disgusting pedophile and sex slave ring that exists in “tinsel town”. Of course, this prompted SJWs who idolize and practically deify these celebrities to think of Gervais’ actions as “controversial” or him being a “jerk” for it.
 
Think of the guy what you will (he’s a Leftist, so I have my own reasons not to particularly like him, or at least, agree with everything he ever says, but to his credit, he is a prominent supporter of free speech for all, which is more than I can say for most other Leftists), but he told these people something no one has ever dared to tell them: the truth. They don’t know anything of what they talk about. They oppose the killing of Soleimani and support Iran in this, despite the fact that Iran kills its own citizens on the regular and executes homosexuals, as well as generally treats women as second-class citizens at best and have been since the revolution in 1979 that installed the current dictatorship system.
 
They lecture people about “doing the right thing” while accepting tons of money from China. They lecture people about climate change from the comfort of one of their many, often massive, homes that make up massive carbon footprints, or from the comfort of their private jets as they fly to one of these events or to a different country or state to film some scenes. They lecture people about “women’s rights” and “women’s liberation” despite the fact that there is nothing more enslaving than living life based on your carnal desires and avoiding as much responsibility as possible by committing acts of murder that are, for some reason, considered not only legal, but morally right by many in this country.
 
They lecture people about “women’s empowerment” while being complicit in or, at best, complacent about the sex trade that exists in Hollywood, as well as the pedophile rings that exist. They lecture us about being “tolerant” of others while they openly mock and display hatred towards anyone they disagree with, to the point where they consider such dissenters to be sons of Hitler, traitors to their race or traitors to their gender, or any combination of the three.
 
These people are as fake as the movies they star in and Ricky Gervais took them to task over such phony self-righteousness and utter hypocrisy.
 
Romans 2:3
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
 
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.
 
John 3:20
“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.
 
Isaiah 5:20
“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.

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.
 
Ezekiel 22:9
“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.

Continuing the effort to try and discredit Trump’s popularity, and more importantly, legitimacy as President of the United States, multiple Leftists have tried to build the case that if you are a Trump supporter, you are in a “cult”. Not only is that flatly untrue and insulting (not that I would expect less from these people), but I believe the shoe fits on the other foot.
 
Recently, during a segment ironically titled “Reliable Sources”, CNN’s Brian Stelter hosted a “mental health expert” by the name of Steven Hassan, who was also pushing a book he wrote, titled: “The Cult of Trump.”
 
So, of course, this is nothing but objective, fact-based, non-partisan news and you have been brainwashed if you disagree. Nothing wrong with this at all.
 
Sarcasm aside, Hassan began: “I define a destructive cult as an authoritarian pyramid-structured group with someone at the top who claims to have total power and total wisdom, that uses deception and control of behavior, information, thoughts, and emotions to make people loyal and dependent on obedient followers.”
 
Already, we have plenty to discuss. Okay, say we agree with this definition. Why would this apply to Trump and not someone like, say, Obama? Because back during the Obama years, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, profited tremendously from his dealings with Burisma. Yet, this didn’t come to light until recently, well after the Obamas were out of the White House.
 
And it’s not like this was a secret. Joe Biden is on video admitting to threatening Ukraine with withholding financial aid, something that Obama would’ve been responsible for, if Ukraine officials didn’t get rid of the prosecutor investigating Hunter.
 
Going even beyond just that story, let’s not forget that throughout the 8 years of Obama, he basically could do no wrong in the eyes of the fake news media. Despite all the controversies surrounding the administration, multiple people still insist that the only controversy Obama had to endure was wearing a tan suit (even though I have no idea why it even would be considered a controversy; it’s just a suit).
 
They will completely ignore Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Operation Choke Point (an illegal attempt at shutting down gun stores), and let’s not forget Obama used the intel community to spy on an opposing candidate and collude with foreign agents to create a fake dossier to pass it off as truth. All of these stories were swept under the rug in an effort to protect Barack Obama. Anyone who dissented was considered “racist” for “attacking an African-American president.”
 
Hassan further claims people who support Trump are being “fed propaganda” and are “not encouraged to think for themselves”. “Much of what they’re hearing is emotionally driven, loaded words, thought-stopping and thought-terminating clichés like ‘fake news’ or ‘built the wall’ or ‘Make America Great Again.’”
 
They accuse us of being fed propaganda when CNN was nothing but a Russia-conspiracy network for the past THREE YEARS until that totally flopped. Day after day, they pushed the fake conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians and yet TRUMP SUPPORTERS are the ones being fed propaganda? Not a single piece of evidence came of this investigation, with Mueller declaring in no unclear words that  “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
 
This was in page 2 of volume 1 of the Special Counsel report. This is what tells us there was no Russian collusion, or at least that none could be clearly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And if there was as vast an amount of evidence as people like those on CNN claim there was, Mueller wouldn’t have put that part into his report.
 
For three years, we were told that Trump colluded with Russia by the Cult News Network (might as well call them that, since by Hassan’s own definition, the fake news media falls into this category and it’s a good play at their name). We were told, time and time again, that this story was going to be the end of Trump, or another story was going to be the end of Trump, or this week was Trump’s worst week, or that week was his worst, or the walls are closing in on Trump today, or they are closing in on him tomorrow. Three years of nothing but fake news surrounding ONE topic, let alone anything else they talk about.
 
When you make a claim that is not true, that means you are lying. For three years, CNN has been lying about Trump-Russia collusion and continue to make up other lies as well in an effort to destroy Trump. This is the deception that makes CNN and the other fake news organizations fall into the category of “cult”, and their viewers into the category of “cult followers” or “members.” When you are repeatedly told something and believe it despite the truth, despite reality, that is cultish thinking, if not outright insanity.
 
I once mentioned that I got into a Twitter argument with someone who claimed that the Mueller report proved Trump colluded with Russia, despite the excerpt that I quoted earlier showing the opposite. This tells me that she either didn’t read the report and was told what was in it by someone else (cult-like) or read it and was simply left completely insane by the last few years.
 
This is the sort of damage the fake news media causes people, and it’s insanely rich that they would try and categorize support for Trump as cult-like behavior. Do they forget that most of Trump’s supporters are Christians? We follow Christ, and we support Trump because he also follows Christ. What reason does an actual Christian have to support any of the Satanist Democrats we see today? People who insist that murder of children, in and out of the womb, is moral; who insist that we are a fundamentally racist nation; who wish to bankrupt our country in order to “pay” for “free” healthcare for ILLEGALS, as well as a multitude of “green” programs that strip people of civil and constitutional rights in a futile “effort” to “fight” climate change. Why would any sincere Christian support such people?
 
We support Trump and will continue to support him so long as he doesn’t stray from what made him so popular in the first place. We didn’t vote for Trump because he was a reality TV star or because he was a successful real estate mogul or because he was particularly charismatic. We voted for him because he understood perfectly where the nation was headed and knew that we had the ability to Make America Great Again, so long as the disruptive regulations and bureaucracies got out of the way.
 
When we say someone is spreading “fake news”, that’s not a cliché. That’s pointing out that someone is lying about someone or something because they have biases that overshadow objective reporting. When we say “build the wall”, that’s not a cliché either. It’s a desire to secure our border, keep bad people from getting in, keep people who would take advantage of our country out of it, and ensuring that there are as few Kate Steinle cases as humanly possible. And when we say “Make America Great Again,” it’s a desire to actually bring America back to the greatness it once knew, because it had been brought down several pegs due to the Washington Establishment’s globalist ideals.
 
Before Trump, the President of the United States would go on apology tours for all the “injustices” that America had supposedly committed. Before Trump, we had a President of the United States who would declare “mission accomplished” extremely prematurely and would send us down the path of endless wars. Before Trump, we had a President of the United States who couldn’t keep his namesake in his pants and got impeached for perjury. Before Trump, we had a President of the United States who lied to the American people about not creating any new taxes and then turning around and creating new taxes.
 
Now, we are putting America First wherever we can, even despite what the Washington Establishment is trying to do in Congress and in lower courts.
 
To say that any of these desires is “cult-like” is nothing short of a pathetic attempt at projection. Everything Hassan said about Trump and his supporters being a “cult” can be more-so applied to the Left and to the fake news media like Brian Stelter and the rest of the Cult News Network.
 
It’s utter hypocrisy to claim such a thing of Trump supporters and it’s very much the reason why the fake news media is so hated. It’s not news anymore. Someone tuning in to CNN isn’t doing it to get informed on what’s happening, but to be given talking points to use on social media or at the dinner table during Thanksgiving about any given topic.
 
In fact, Thanksgiving was part of Stelter’s segment, as Hassan encouraged CNN viewers to “deprogram” Trump supporters during Thanksgiving. They are telling people “your Trump supporting cousin is in a cult, here’s what you should do to help them join ours-… eh, I mean, to help them escape.”
 
They do not believe that anyone could honestly support President Trump; that they had to be “mind controlled” or “brainwashed” in some way. Again, it’s nothing apart from total projection of what they actually are. Their message is basically: “If you do not agree with us 100% of the time regarding everything we discuss, you’re in a cult.”
 
So who actually is in the cult here?
 
Matthew 7:15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.