In recent time, some Democrats have attempted to gaslight the nation as to who was supporting efforts to defund the police. Even though throughout the summer and as recently as just a few months ago they were the ones loudly calling for the defunding of the police, some have attempted to gaslight people into believing it was Republicans, not Democrats, who want to defund the police.
An effort which will very obviously not work out in their favor, but hey, they’re trying. They are attempting to return to the side of sanity, to an extent, but instead of accepting responsibility for their dangerous and deadly rhetoric which has resulted in huge crime spikes across Democrat-run cities, they are trying to gaslight people into thinking that Republicans were actually the ones who were defunding the police.
Biden advisor Cedric Richmond started off this ridiculous attempt when he went on “Fox News Sunday” and claimed that Republicans voted against an emergency relief plan which would allow for state and local governments “to replenish their police departments and do the other things that are needed,” claimed Richmond. Jen Psaki parroted his talking point as well.
A simple fact-check found that the American Rescue Plan which they are talking about did not specifically include funding to hire more police officers.
Oh, look, Democrats lying their asses off. What are the odds?
One doesn’t even need to look at what Richmond was arguing to find his accusation utterly baseless. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, back in June of 2020, cut $1 billion from the NYPD budget. The Philadelphia City Council approved a $33 million cut to their police department and the city is “on pace to have one of its deadliest years on record,” according to NBC10 Philadelphia. Washington, D.C. lawmakers promised to cut $15 million from the police budget in June of 2020, and as of May of this year, the WaPo has reported that homicides increased 38% compared to the same time last year.
In Baltimore, their city council voted to cut $22 million in police budget. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti cut $150 million from the police budget last year, which Quemala Harris (my new name for her, thank you protesters at the border) said “I applaud Eric Garcetti” because of his actions and said “we have to reimagine public safety”.
In Minneapolis, back on June 12, 2020, the city council unanimously pledged to disband their police department, leading to gunshot victims more than doubling this past year, with an increase of 81% in homicide rate. The Seattle City Council approved proposals last August to reduce their police department by as many as 100 officers.
And in Portland, Oregon, likely the one place which trumps even California as a total hellhole, the city commissioners cut almost $16 million from their police department back in June of 2020.
And that’s just in the actual actions of Democrats in their own individual cities. There are also examples of Democrat after Democrat repeating the rhetoric of defunding the police, everyone from Occupier Biden to his associate and assistant AG’s, his Secretary of Labor, and a number of Democrat legislators, council members and Minnesota AG Keith Ellison expressing their desire to defund the police and reduce their responsibilities and effectiveness.
Even to this day, some particularly Leftist Democrats like AOC and Ayanna Pressley continue to support their “defund the police” movement, with AOC dismissing the crime waves as simple “hysteria”. And hypocritically, Rep. Jamaal Brown continues to support defunding the police while simultaneously requesting additional police protection at his New York home.
All of this leads to anyone with even a single IQ point, not even necessarily a single-digit IQ, to recognize that it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are pushing and working to defund the police.
But this does lead to the question of why some Democrats like Richmond and Psaki would contradict all these other Democrats and baselessly claim that Republicans are defunding the police. It’s very simple: the “defund the police” movement is rotten filth that the VAST majority of Americans disapprove of.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 52% of American voters believe that we should spend MORE on police, with 23% saying the current amount is fine and 18% saying we should spend less. That’s a 75-18 split on maintaining or adding to the police budget versus defunding them. The Left is in the clear minority here.
Furthermore, 66% of voters agree with the following statement: “The radical and reckless decisions by some jurisdictions to defund their police forces have had a real and devastating effect on American communities.”
According to the poll, “That’s a quote from a letter that Republican Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland this month.” Just 24% of voters disagreed while 11% were not sure.
Along racial demographics, 65% of whites, 62% of blacks and 70% of other minorities also agreed with that quote.
This is far from the only poll which indicates a huge lack of support for the Left’s “defund the police” movement, and it seems some on the Left have realized their mistake. Only, instead of admitting their mistake like mature, responsible adults do, they lie through their teeth and accuse other people of doing what they have been doing, much like a child shifting the blame for breaking a vase on to his infant sibling.
And so, they attempt to gaslight the country into believing that, because Republicans didn’t vote on a trillion-dollar “rescue” plan which would only further destroy this country economically, they claim that Republicans didn’t vote to fund police, even though that wasn’t a specific item on that bill.
Not an unsurprising act, of course, as deceivers will deceive. However, it is reaching for the bottom of the barrel in terms of blaming Republicans for crap. They made massive showings of wanting to defund the police all summer of last year, and often supported the deadly riots that followed Floyd’s death. That is, they supported those riots until polls came out that, surprise, surprise, people weren’t fond of their cities burning.
Similarly, they support the “defund the police” movement until, once again, surprise, surprise, people aren’t fond of violent crime turning their cities into real-life Grand Theft Auto.
Ironically, a largely police-free society could be possible and positive, but the Left would have to give up practically everything they believe in. A society which values the sanctity of life is far less likely to see it be taken. A society which values personal freedom is far less likely to oppress it. And a society which values self-defense and gun ownership is far less likely to see others malignantly using them against others.
Put these things together and you hardly even need a police force other than for helping out with accidents or medical emergencies which might take firefighters and medics longer to respond. However, the Left doesn’t want that because 1) like I said, this would require them to give up everything they believe in and 2) that’s not a society they actually want to see exist. They don’t actually want a police-free world. They want to CONTROL the police so that they have more control over people. So why would they want to do away with them?
All this “defund the police” crap isn’t even what they actually want, even though some have attempted to go forth with it. Even then, a lot of the places which defunded or somewhat cut police funding backtracked on that and gave their police departments MORE funding, such as New York, L.A. and Minneapolis, to name a few.
Virtue signaling is the name of the game that the Left is playing. Some of them might actually mean what they say, such as AOC, but that is a relative insane few, even among the Left. This isn’t to absolve them of their crimes against Americans, of course. Because of their rhetoric and actions, whether or not they mean them or later went on to backtrack, they still led to huge surges in crime in the cities which they run. More people are dead because of them. More families separated. More lives ruined. And this is JUST when talking about their soft approach to crime.
The Left has killed many, many people, virtue signal or not. And now, some of them want to return to the side of sanity by gaslighting everyone into believing that the Republicans are responsible for the suffering that THEY have brought onto millions of people.
They are a garbage people. Unsurprising, then, that they spew what they are.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
I may sound like a broken record, but the Left has always used the tactic of projection. Whatever they themselves do and believe, they project that onto their political opponents. They themselves are massive racists, often openly, yet project onto their opponents that racism via accusations that holding such opposing beliefs makes them inherently racist.
It used to be that calling a Republican racist was all the Democrats needed to do because most Republicans would usually become rather timid and gutlessly apologize for holding such “racist” beliefs or for saying things which align with such “racism.”
Thankfully, apart from a few RINOs here and there, that has largely stopped. However, that doesn’t mean that the Left has stopped accusing everyone who stands against them of being racist at whatever interval they could. They, for five years, accused President Trump of being a racist with absolutely zero evidence to back that up.
Meanwhile, they themselves have routinely been shown to be unapologetic racists in one way or another, be it in being openly against white people or, through their actions, being against non-whites. The latter is what we are talking about today, as I mentioned in the title: Leftist senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a member (alongside his wife who is a major stakeholder) of an all-white club in Rhode Island.
According to GoLocalProv, “Both Whitehouse and his wife Sandra as well as their families have been members of [the all-white private Bailey’s Beach Club in Newport, RI] for decades. Whitehouse did transfer his shares in the club to his wife years ago, and she is now one of the largest shareholders in the all-white club. The club’s membership is a who’s who [of] Newport, Palm Beach, and New York wealth.”
In a feeble and futile attempt at damage control, a spokesperson for Whitehouse told The Washington Post that the club isn’t, actually, racist and all-white, and that it “has had and has members of color.”
I say this is feeble and futile because one doesn’t even have to do any research to find that the spokesperson is lying. Whitehouse himself basically proves that they were.
In an interaction with a reporter last Friday, Whitehouse defended his membership in the all-white club and the interaction went as follows:
Reporter: “Back in 2017, you had expressed concerns about the membership of the all-white Bally’s (sic) Beach Club, you said that you hoped it would become more diverse. Now your family’s been members, your wife is one of the largest shareholders. Has there been any traction in that? Are there any minority members of the club now?”
Whitehouse: “I think the people who are running the place are still working on that. And I’m sorry, it hasn’t happened yet.”
That right there proves his own SPOKESPERSON wrong about their claim that it has had and currently has members who are not white. From Whitehouse’s lips himself, he refutes the spokesperson’s b.s.
The reporter then asks the hypocritical racist piece of crap: “Do you have concerns in 2021? I mean, obviously, it’s been four years, you had remarks on the floor following the death of Brianna Taylor and George Floyd saying, you know, hoping to root out systemic racism in the country. Your thoughts on an elite all-white wealthy club again in this day and age, you know, should these clubs continue to exist?”
To which Whitehouse gave the tired old argument that proponents of slavery and segregation have always given: “It’s a long tradition in Rhode Island and there are many of them. And I think we just need to work our way through the issues. Thank you.”
The guy defends the club’s all-white exclusivity on it being a “long tradition.” Like any good Old South Democrat, he says that such racism is simply “tradition” as though that is in any way an excuse. It probably is to one who projects racism onto others and yet is an even bigger racist themselves.
Not only does he excuse it as a “long tradition”, he also excuses it as there being a lot of clubs (presumably in Rhode Island, specifically) which are all-white clubs. That is another tired argument – that it’s too widespread for any challenge to that system to be worth it.
Whitehouse’s arguments are logical fallacies of argumentum ad antiquitatem, or the argument to antiquity or tradition, that it should be considered acceptable because of its persistence in tradition throughout generations. Such a logical fallacy could be taken to its logical conclusion whereby anything could be permitted if enough time passes and it becomes “tradition.”
For example, one could make the argument that it’s okay for cannibalistic tribes to be cannibals because “it’s a tradition” in their tribe. That they are simply different from us and that we must accept such immoral atrocities because it’s simply part of their culture and has been for generations. Of course, no rational person would simply accept that and would be revolted at such an immoral act.
Then, if we wouldn’t rationally accept cannibalism just on the merits that “it’s tradition” in those tribes, why would anyone turn around and say that it’s okay that the club is all-white just on those same merits? It makes no rational sense and this decision to be part of such a club from Whitehouse isn’t a rational one, but an emotional/financial one.
He’s been part of that club for decades, as we just saw, and thus, has developed sentimentality for the club, at least to some extent or another. Such a thing tends to happen to people and get emotionally attached. But like we also saw, it’s a who’s who of rich socialites from Newport, Palm Beach and New York. The elite of the elite are members of this club (would love to see who else is part of this retched thing) and that brings with it not only a sense of prestige but also the ability to network and financially benefit oneself.
Whatever the reason Whitehouse has for being a part of such a club, the matter of fact is that he is still a massive hypocrite, as is much of the Left. Whitehouse himself pointed out that “there are many of them.” Even assuming that he’s just referring to all-white clubs in Rhode Island, that highlights the hypocritical racism of the Left. Rhode Island is HEAVILY Democrat. Joe Biden “won” over 300,000 votes compared to Trump’s just under 200,000, with Biden “winning” the state by over 20 percentage points. A Democrat state senator running in 2020 won 66.5% of the vote compared to the Republican’s 33.4%.
And in both district races that happened in 2020, the Democrat candidate won well into the double digits. In other words, Rhode Island is a blue state, through and through. So why are there seemingly so many of these all-white clubs that Whitehouse claimed there were?
Well, if you know the Left, this isn’t exactly a tough question. Like I said in the beginning, the Democrats always use projection. They project onto their political opponents the racism that actually lives and thrives within them. They claim that Republicans are racist while they themselves have or are part of all-white clubs. They claim horrible things of Republicans while they themselves are everything they claim their opponents to be.
This is simply how they operate and it has worked on many people for a long time.
I just hope that enough people are waking up to the reality of the rottenness of the Left that we might be able to utterly defeat them and their evil ideology once and for all.
“And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
The Left is full of terrible people, liars, deceivers, and hypocrites. They believe themselves to be knights in shining armor for minorities and have massive savior complexes, and then proceed to accuse other people of doing exactly what they routinely do. One such example is of a self-described teacher from Los Angeles who harassed a Hispanic police officer as he was trying to enforce the law regarding driving while using a phone.
An unidentified woman, who is a self-described teacher, and who was driving a white Mercedes-Benz (pretty luxurious for a teacher, a profession which I’m repeatedly told gets paid in peanuts), was stopped by a Hispanic police officer for using her phone while driving.
In the released body-cam footage, one can see and hear the woman talking with the officer before he even fully approached her window, and proceeded to launch into a racist, anti-cop tirade.
The exchange went as follows:
The woman is first heard saying: “… harassed today because I was going under the speed limit, I was going at 38… and the speed limit is 40, and I was going 38, so why are you harassing me?”
The officer tried to explain the reason for the traffic stop, but the woman interrupted him and said: “Because you’re a murderer. Oh, yes, I started to record because you’re a murderer.”
Which is quite the gargantuan leap in logic here. However, it’s not like we don’t know the reason behind her accusing him of such. It’s not because the officer is notorious for having killed someone, but because he is generally a police officer. The Left has brainwashed many people, particularly black people, into seeing cops not as enforcers of the law, but of oppression, and people who have no regard for human life and are at the ready to take any at a moment’s notice with zero remorse.
This is the narrative the Left has promoted for a few years now, but particularly following the death of George Floyd while in police custody.
At any rate, getting back to the exchange:
The deputy said: “You can’t be on your cell phone while you’re driving.”
Woman: “I wasn’t on my phone; I was recording you because you scared me.”
The deputy then asked for the woman’s driver’s license, and funny enough, she claims to have forgotten it at her apartment.
Now, the deputy should be given credit for how well he handled the situation. Here he is, getting called a “murderer” by virtue of his profession and nothing else substantial, and the woman levying such accusations is driving without a license. In California, as in all states in the country, it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle without a license. California considers it a criminal misdemeanor, which can carry strict penalties with it, though a first-time offense will usually only lead to a ticket. The deputy could have pressed on this issue, asking her “so you’re driving without a license?” but he actually gives her an out: he asks if she has a picture of her license on her phone, which she does.
Considering this woman was driving while using her phone (and her son is with her in her car, making it even worse) and was outright and unapologetically calling the guy a murderer, it was rather gracious of the officer to give her an out regarding driving without a license. Is she grateful in any way? Of course not, Leftists never are.
At one point, the woman even asks that the deputy call his supervisor. The deputy said: “I already did. He’s on his way.” To which the woman so graciously replied: “Good. Because you’re a murderer.” Which doesn't make much sense to me, seeing as, if she believes cops are murderers and that she is in danger of being killed by one of them, why would she want a supervisor aka another cop on the scene? Well, not like Leftists are rational people.
More of the exchange:
Woman: “And so you’re giving me a cell phone ticket? Is that why you’re harassing me?”
Deputy: “It’s not harassment. I am enforcing the law.”
Woman: “I have a right to and record the police when they’re harassing me.”
Deputy: “By all means, but you can’t do it while you’re driving.”
Eventually, the woman said the following: “And you scared me and made me think you were going to murder me.”
Deputy: “Okay, well, I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Woman: “Well, that’s not just a feeling. You’re a murderer.”
Deputy: “Okay… Can you zoom in on that for me, dear? (referring to the photo of the license on her phone)”
Deputy: “Thank you.”
Woman: “And I’m perfectly legal and I’m a teacher. So there, murderer,” she said in a braggadocious manner.
Woman: “You’re a murderer.”
And so on and so forth the exchange went, with the deputy just trying to do his job and the liberal privileged woman repeatedly calling him a murderer with zero basis for such an accusation.
She even went on to accuse him that “You’re scaring me. You’re threatening to kill me and my son,” despite the fact that the deputy was perfectly polite and professional and didn’t make anything close to a threat.
And as I mentioned earlier, it’s even worse the fact that her son was there. The body-cam footage blurs the woman and you can’t see her son in the car, so I don’t know how old he is, but if he’s old enough to be paying attention, he is seeing how his mom acts towards an officer and how she treats him, and likely was taught that it is okay to do something so awful.
Not to mention that she said she was a teacher, so if that is true, she also has influence over several other children as well, whom she likely is teaching that all police officers are murderers. Granted, at this point, and in Los Angeles in particular, I highly doubt she is the only one. But she is still, in all likelihood, teaching children horrible things and, frankly, how to be thugs as opposed to productive members of society.
In any case, eventually, the deputy’s supervisor shows up, and interestingly enough, the woman stopped calling the deputy a murderer, but began calling him something else.
The supervisor is heard telling the woman: “All he needs is your signature. He’s only citing you for using your cell phone while you’re driving. That’s it.”
Woman: “For him being a Mexican racist. What is that name?”
“Here you go, Mexican racist. You’re always gonna be a Mexican. You’ll never be white, you know that, right? You’ll never be white, which is what you really want to be. You want to be white,” she continued.
She might know something we don’t, but it’s not immediately clear if the officer is actually Mexican as opposed to another Latin American nationality. However, since the woman made so many baseless assumptions (including calling him a racist despite the fact that he never displayed anything of the sort. It’s almost as if calling someone a racist is a reflex for Leftists, like kicking your leg up when a doctor bangs the knee with a hammer), I will assume that she just guessed he was Mexican, and was referring to the Hispanic man as “Mexican,” thereby showing herself as a racist (not that bringing up racism allegations in this manner didn’t make her one already).
At any rate, while I generally have my problems with police from Leftist areas, namely due to the tyrannical enforcement of unconstitutional mandates which aren’t even law, I reasonably have to at least defend this deputy’s actions in this isolated incident. He did everything right, even was gracious enough not to press her on the fact she was DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE, and he was pretty quickly and baselessly repeatedly called a murderer by this highly privileged woman. Worse still, her son, though of unknown age, was there to witness such horrid behavior, which he will believe to be acceptable later on in life (which could drag him down into a life of crime, just because his mom wanted to be “woke”).
This is the kind of behavior the Left PROMOTES and believes to not only be acceptable, but ENCOURAGABLE. They believe more people ought to be this nasty and disgusting with officers.
Now, there are times when one can hardly defend an officer. For example, the officer who killed Daunte Wright because she, somehow, believed she was wielding her non-lethal taser as opposed to her lethal firearm. Another example would be the police force in Calgary, Alberta, Canada whom have acted like the SS in trying to shut down a pastor’s church service. Other such examples exist, which show police officers to be fallible. However, while it is wrong for those officers to do/have done those things, it is equally wrong to paint officers with a wide brush and claim that they are all alike and all exclusively evil.
Not that reason matters to the Left at any rate. Antifa repeatedly exclaims “ACAB” or “All Cops Are Bastards” (ironically, a sexist statement, seeing as there are female officers) and this woman clearly believes that all officers are murderers, if she has no qualms whatsoever about rather quickly levying such an accusation against the deputy.
Like I said, the Left is full of terrible people, liars, deceivers, and every other negative word one could come up with. They care little about the lives of officers, and even believe they ought to be killed if possible. They refuse to see that officers can be fallible, and even when the officers are 100% justified in their actions, such as the one who killed Ma’Khia Bryant, they still attack them and claim that “reform” is necessary.
I have literally seen people claim that, in the case of the Ma’Khia Bryant shooting, they would have shot the knife out of her hand and detain her afterwards. It’s asinine argumentation and derivative of a couch quarterback, whom is certain he would have done everything right in a football game as opposed to the professional athlete.
They have no regard for human life, as evidenced by their promotion of abortion at every stage of the pregnancy (and even more ghoulishly, sometimes promoting AFTER-BIRTH abortion), but also evidenced in how they view and treat police officers.
No, officers aren’t perfect; of course, they aren’t. They are human, after all. But the “solutions” that the Left comes up with are asinine at best and utterly self-destructive at worst for any city and state which tries it (Minneapolis defunded the police, crime immediately skyrocketed, and are now trying to re-fund the police). “Solutions” which are based not on scientific data (which they often claim is crucial in pretty much every other aspect, but even then, they still don’t actually follow the data) but on fake news media narratives which often maliciously spin things for the purposes of an agenda.
For example, 60 Minutes deceptively edited footage from the Ma’Khia Bryant shooting to edit out the knife from her hand, which she was about to use on another (black) woman, in order to make that shooting unjustified and in order to destroy the officer’s life.
The Left, pretty evidently, is the scum of the Earth. No one can really argue with me on this with any sort of actual evidence to the contrary.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
I’ve already detailed many instances of Leftists breaking their own Chinese coronavirus rules and guidelines in a previous article, but that article is already a few months old and obviously, the hypocrisy of the Left has only continued since then.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (henceforth known as “Whitler” for her Nazi style of governance) has often broken her own Chinese coronavirus rules and guidelines (and her husband is also guilty of this), but this instance in particular is especially juicy to me.
You see, Whitler’s spokesman confirmed on Monday that the governor had flown to Florida about a month ago. “In the past six months, she has left the state three times, once for the inauguration, once to assist her elderly father who is battling a chronic illness, and once to visit with Michigan’s National Guard troops,” said Bobby Leddy, Whitler’s press secretary. “All trips were very brief, two full days or less, closely followed public health guidelines, and were made when Michigan’s daily positivity rate was in the low single digits.”
“Closely followed public health guidelines”? Are you kidding me? She long ago instituted travel guidelines to keep people from leaving the state as much as possible and she broke those guidelines for her own reasons. I can understand wanting to be close to her father when he was sick and maybe traveling to visit the National Guard (which I imagine was sent to D.C. following the Capitol riot), but she generally did not have to attend Biden’s inauguration, especially as D.C. was put into lockdown and no regular civilian was allowed to attend it. She willingly broke her own guidelines, Leddy.
At any rate, Breitbart News also reported that a top Whitler aide had traveled to Florida for spring break and her trip was extensively documented on her Facebook. And like I said, Whitler also went to the sunshine state recently, though the reasons were not specified due to “ongoing security concerns” aka she went there to party for spring break.
Well, I can’t say that for certain, as I have no proof of that, but hey, the Left has no issue with accusing people with zero evidence, so they shouldn’t be surprised when their own tactics are used against them. Until proven wrong, I will allege that she went to Florida for spring break, after telling people not to leave Michigan.
But do you want to know what makes this particularly funny to me? Back on April 3rd, presumably after she herself had gone to Florida, Whitler instructed Michiganders to not travel to Florida, blaming it for a rise in MICHIGAN’S cases. Whitler told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: “Michigan and Florida are not next to each other. But this is the time of the year that snowbirds come home from Florida, where people are going on spring break, and all of these things can contribute to spread.”
This is a similar argument to the one Leftists make to “argue” why their gun-control heavy cities are so riddled by gun violence: “It’s the other cities and states, with less gun control restrictions, that bring in the guns and allow people to kill each other.” It’s an idiotic argument because it begs the question: “If that’s the case, why aren’t those neighboring cities and states riddled by more gun violence than the gun-control heavy city?” If anything, that’s an argument that showcases how ineffective gun control is, if the neighboring cities and states, with fewer gun control measures, are less violent than the gun-control heavy cities and states.
Likewise, this kind of argument showcases how ineffective lockdowns are. If Florida is the reason MICHIGAN’S Chinese coronavirus cases are going up, why isn’t Florida a hotspot of the virus? Why isn’t the open state absolutely riddled by the virus? And if Florida is to blame for Michigan’s cases going up, then why did Whitler go to Florida for any given reason?
I mean, if the sunshine state is THIS bad for the state of Michigan, and those who go to Florida and return to Michigan are risking their fellow Michiganders, then why did Whitler go to Florida? Why is she willing to risk the health and safety of her own citizens and constituents by traveling to the, apparently, virus-riddled state?
This is the kind of logical trouble these Leftists often get into when they are utterly hypocritical about what they say and do. Either they show that they aren’t nearly as afraid of the virus as they pretend to be or as they want their constituents to be (as a scared populace is easy to control) or they are subject to the very kind of punishment they wish to deliver upon deviants, with all the accusations of “endangering their fellow Americans” and whatever else.
The only unfortunate aspect is that hypocrisy doesn’t tend to stick with them, as the fake news media runs cover for them and will always either support them in what they do or outright ignore them and their hypocrisy, as they are doing with this and many other cases. Even the most notorious of these cases, Nancy Pelosi’s insistence of getting a hair-cut, was largely run to the ground because she knows how to order the media around to get them to not cover her blatantly hypocritical (and, frankly, elitist) actions.
But regardless of the media’s actions, people still take notice. For example, Lisa Hanlin, a Polish restaurant owner in Milford, Michigan, has taken note of the tyrannical and hypocritical actions of Whitler. Being a restaurant owner, she was obviously ordered to close down due to the lockdown. She told The Federalist that people are “tired of the lies and manipulation” from Whitler.
Whether or not this, and her other actions, will lead to anything substantial and meaningful like her impeachment or a defeat at the polls is uncertain. However, one can hope and pray that these evil bastards (let’s not forget that Whitler joins Cuomo and other Leftist governors in killing their elderly populations in nursing homes) will face the justice that they deserve within their and our lifetimes.
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
When photos taken in 2014 of migrant children in cages were released during the Trump administration, the fake news media and Left accused the president of keeping kids in cages and treating them like animals. Basically, they were accusing him of crimes against humanity.
Despite the fact that, once again, those photos were taken in 2014 and thus, during the Obama administration, the Left took that ball and ran with it as much as they could, accusing Trump of despicable things. Despite that being one of the many debunked hoaxes the Left propagated about Trump, they used that up until he left office.
Now, however, with Biden being the Occupier of the Oval Office, the narrative has changed. Biden is still keeping kids in cages and even recently, opened a “migrant facility for children”, according to the WaPo.
“First migrant facility for children opens under Biden,” read their headline. Wanna know what the headline would have been under the Trump administration? “First migrant concentration camp for children opens its cold, steel gates under Trump.”
They would have made this “migrant facility for children” sound as much like it’s Auschwitz as they possibly could. But under Biden, they call it a “migrant facility for children”. And the WaPo tried to make it look like it’s a vacation resort for the kids, writing:
“At the 66-acre site, groups of beige trailers encircle a giant white dining tent, a soccer field and a basketball court. There is a bright blue hospital tent with white bunk beds inside. A legal services trailer has the Spanish word 'Bienvenidos', or welcome, on a banner on its roof. There are trailers for classrooms, a barber shop, a hair salon. The facility has its own ambulances and firetrucks, as well as its own water supply.”
“The most colorful trailer is at the entryway, where flowers, butterflies and handmade posters still hang on its walls from Carrizo’s first opening in 2019.”
Like they point out, the facility was first opened in 2019, when Trump was president. When he was president, the WaPo made sure to make the facility look as bad as it could, quoting an operator of that shelter as saying “I hate this mission” and getting a video of “Inside the holding facility for migrant children in Carrizo Springs, TX.”
Since their articles are behind a pay-wall (and I refuse to give my money to Leftists), I can’t really access them, but one of the articles they wrote recently was titled “No, Biden’s new border move isn’t like Trump’s ‘kids in cages’” when talking about this very facility being opened back up.
So they are very much aware of the hypocrisy of the Biden administration, having attacked Trump for keeping “kids in cages” and then proceeding to keep kids in concentration camps and in shipping containers. But since this is a Democrat in office that we’re talking about, they have to restructure and reframe the narrative.
“Kids in cages” is now “kids in friendly migrant facilities where they get all the things they wanted”.
But I have no issue with attacking Biden for this crap. I’m not even going to go with the hypocrisy angle, because hypocrisy largely doesn’t stick to the Left. I’m just going to take the Left’s place in their accusations.
The facility that Biden is putting migrant kids in looks like a concentration camp and the actual buildings like they are shipping containers.
Occupier Biden is keeping kids in concentration camps. That’s the story.
Of course, the Biden administration, knowing damn well that this makes them look bad even if the fake news media is on their side, is trying to rationalize and justify the decision to open it back up.
Biden’s Press Sec. Jen Psaki argued that they were reopening that facility “Because of COVID-19 protocols”, saying that “the capacity at existing Office of Refugee Resettlement shelters has been significantly reduced because, of course, you can’t have a child in every bed. There needs to be spacing, and we abide by the spacing to protect the kids who are living in those facilities for a short period of time.”
So they are saying “social distancing” is the reason for reopening that facility.
Well, of course the Chinese coronavirus is the reason for it. After all, even the Nazis prioritized putting people with health issues in the concentration camps first. And, of course, the Nazis also made sure to separate parents from their kids, much like the Biden administration is currently doing.
No, it doesn’t matter that these are unaccompanied kids. It’s up to the federal government to ensure that kids are with their parents and if they don’t do that, they are Nazis. Those are the rules that we have come to understand over the last four years, and those are the rules that we will make sure to enforce here today.
Further, the Biden administration is planning on “resettling” the kids in the States, as opposed to sending them back to their parents. So they are willing to put the kids’ lives at risk of abduction and abuse by just letting them go in the States? How positively inhumane.
It’s clear to me and to anyone who has been paying attention that Biden is literally Hitler and his government workers are Nazis.
I say that only half joking, seeing as he seeks to employ socialist policies much like Hitler did, including the restricting of free speech. Biden and the Democrats, entirely unsurprisingly, are far closer to Hitler than Trump ever was.
But it’s amusing seeing Biden completely flake on every campaign promise he made during the general election. He promised things like “no more kids in cages” and “no deportations in my first 100 days in office” among other things. He backtracked on basically everything, which partly explains his poor approval numbers. The other part that explains his poor approval numbers is that the majority of the country didn’t elect him into office in the first place and didn’t want him anywhere near power.
And now that he has power, even those who did vote for him are regretting having done so.
Biden is not only putting kids in cages, but also in shipping containers and sending them to concentration camps. Why is Joe Biden committing crimes against humanity?
And, unsurprisingly, Leftists which previously condemned Trump’s use of the facility are also changing their tune when Biden uses it.
AOC, who previously attacked Trump as holding “concentration camps”, gave Biden a slap on the wrist, at worst, tweeting:
“This is not okay, never has been okay, never will be okay – no matter the administration or party. Our immigration system is built on a carceral framework. It’s no accident that challenging how we approach both these issues are considered ‘controversial’ stances. They require reimagining our relationship to each other and challenging common assumptions we take for granted. It’s only 2 mos into this admin & our fraught, unjust immigration system will not transform in that time. That’s why bold reimagination is so impt. DHS shouldn’t exist, agencies should be reorganized, ICE gotta go, ban for-profit detention, create climate refugee status & more.”
Yeah, two things to say about this.
First of all, this “kids in cages” thing, as I alluded to earlier in the article, only began to seem like an issue because Trump was president. The Flores Settlement, which is the reason the detention center system operates as it does, came during the Clinton administration. Since then, two Republicans and one Democrat were president, with another Democrat being Occupier. If this has been such a massive ethical issue, why didn’t Obama do anything about it in eight years?
Secondly, Biden just reopened the migrant facility. That’s not an attempt to “transform” the “unjust immigration system”. That’s an enforcement of that immigration system, and a decision that he didn’t need to make, even if rationalizing it as having been because of the Chinese coronavirus.
The guy has also deported hundreds of illegal immigrants since he took office, despite promising not to do so throughout the campaign trail. So it doesn’t matter that it’s only been two months (one, actually, not two, but I can’t expect AOC to know how to count), because this is a conscious (as much as it can be with Dementia Joe) decision to reopen a facility that did not need to be reopened, particularly if you seek to change the immigration system.
So don’t give me that crap, and yes, AOC, it apparently is okay depending on the administration or party. You called them “concentration camps” outright when Trump was in office, and now that Biden reopens a facility, I see nowhere in your posts that you called them that again.
So allow me to take your place here: they are concentration camps and Biden is Hitler. Trying to justify this makes you a Nazi.
Biden should be impeached and imprisoned for crimes against humanity and every second he isn’t is a threat to national and human security.
“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?”
Allow me to preface this article by making the disclaimer that I am in no way a financial analyst nor am I all that knowledgeable (as of yet) about investing and finances. I am, however, as you may have been able to tell, more of a political analyst and commentator than anything else. And it is through the lens of politics that I will look at the following story. Though I won’t be able to explain every financial aspect of these events, I can give you the overall political meaning that comes from it.
Last week, one of the biggest stories out there was the mini financial war between big Wall Street hedge funds and investors versus small retail investors who banded together in rebellion against the crap that these big investors have done for decades: manipulating stocks for financial gain, often maliciously.
It began with hedge fund managers heavily short-selling GameStop’s stock. To “short-sell” is to borrow stock from a lender (you can’t sell things you don’t own, after all), sell those stocks to a buyer under the belief that the stock is going to plunge, and once the price of the stock goes down, buy those stocks back at that lower price, thus turning a profit, and returning those stocks to the lender.
There is nothing inherently illegitimate or wrong about this. Despite what some financial analysts charge the retail investors with doing, they are doing the same thing: basically making a bet that a stock will go one particular way. When you sell a stock short, you are betting that the stock will go down in price.
At any rate, some big hedge fund managers shorted GameStop’s stock, which in itself, again, is not a bad thing. What WAS a bad thing was when one of the hedge fund managers, a man named Andrew Left (fitting last name), “held a livestream presentation arguing the stock would fall by 50%,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
See, it’s one thing to bet that a stock will go down, it’s another thing entirely to do things to CAUSE IT to go down. That’s called market manipulation and big investors have been doing this for ages in both legal and illegal ways.
These big investors were trying to cause GameStop to basically go bust and profit off of its financial carcass. Retail investors at a Reddit group called “WallStreetBets” were aware of the nefarious scheme by big investors and decided to short squeeze them. “Short squeeze” is when a short seller’s bet goes opposite from what they expected, with the stock surging instead of plunging, and is forced to buy back the stock as quickly as possible before the value further increases. This pretty much always results in a loss for the short seller.
And thus began the mini financial war between the 1%, elite investors vs. the 99%, retail investors.
Naturally, because the Redditors successfully short squeezed the hedge funds, leading to the big investors to HAVE to buy the stock, it led to GameStop’s stock price to rise even further. At that point, both small and big investors were buying GameStop stocks, leading to the massive and ridiculous percentage increases of over 100%.
However, some big investors, because they couldn’t bear the thought of the peasant class schooling them in their own game, doubled down on shorting GameStop (they may have closed their positions and shorted again) and led to the stock being shorted 138%. That is not a number that should even virtually be possible, as it isn’t reasonable to sell more stocks of a company than are available shares. But if big investors and hedge funds band together, this is something that can technically happen.
If a relatively small company enters public trading, big investors could technically short its stock 300% or more, which would absolutely kill off the company. No company can survive being shorted that much, which is why the hedge fund managers shorted GameStop as much as 138%: they specifically set out to KILL the company – the financial equivalent of killing everyone who works for the company so that there is no company.
But the Redditors know that as long as they aren’t selling the stocks they are buying, the big investors are in some amount of bind (the problem, however, is doing this kind of thing hurts other stocks, which hurts more than just the billionaires – it hurts everybody including the small investors, not to mention that, again, they may have closed their positions and re-shorted, so they aren’t hurt as much as before, thereby defeating the purpose). Which is why the big investors then turned to the financial platforms (which technically would have had to cover their losses if the investors exceeded their margin, so they had financial reasons to do something) as well as the SEC and even the FBI to do what they could to stop the retail investors.
Trading was either restricted or altogether halted for stocks which saw those massive percentage increases like GameStop, AMC Theater, Nokia, etc.; the fake news media began to, hilariously, try to paint the Redditors as white supremacists, Nazis, and CNN’s Chris Cillizza outright tried to blame Trump for it; and it’s entirely likely that the government will do something so this cannot happen again, at least from the retail investors (it helps the big investors that the current illegitimate Treasury Secretary received nearly a million dollars in “speaking fees” giving speeches to Citadel, which is the owner of one of the hedge funds involved in this which lost billions of dollars).
Furthermore, people siding with Wall Street set out to call this event a “pump and dump”, which is when “fraudsters boost [a] company’s stock price by sharing positive, but fake, information,” according to CNBC.
Basically, they are accusing the investors of doing something similar to what Enron did, but with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The Redditors didn’t drive the company’s stock price up by lying about how good of a company it was, they drove it up by just BUYING the company’s shares to stick it to the big investors trying to play God with a company. I'm not saying it was totally legitimate, as there was clear collusion here, but this is exactly what the hedge funds do all the time.
And, by the way, it’s utterly hypocritical that these big investors are charging the retail ones of performing a “pump and dump” operation when THE BIG INVESTORS WERE TRYING TO DO THE OPPOSITE.
Again, Andrew Left held a livestream where he was arguing that the stock would plunge by 50%. How is that not market manipulation?
How is it not manipulation when big investors with access to CNBC write about how they think certain companies are “overvalued” or “undervalued” and invest in those stocks at the moment when they would make plenty of profit?
How is it not manipulation when hedge funds short a stock 138% to financially choke the company to death?
I’m not saying that the Redditors aren’t doing the same thing, or that what they are doing isn’t hurting even the smaller investors – they are – but it’s hypocritical nonetheless that the big investors cry “wolf” seeing as this is what they do routinely.
It’s not good when either the big investors or the small investors hurt the little guy. And trust me, it’s not just fat cat millionaires who invest in the stock market. Those with less than $10,000 in their portfolios also invest. Those who make a little money and transfer some of it into their trading accounts invest. Those people stand to get hurt by both parties involved, which is the biggest issue.
But at any rate, I’m not here to talk about the financial aspects of this event. Like I said in the beginning, I want to look at it politically. You may not think politics is involved all that much, buy you’d be surprised at how few things are infested by politics (in large part to the Left).
What we saw here is nothing short of a miniature financial French Revolution. No guillotines or pikes were pulled out. No Bastilles were sieged. No political leaders were made to wear stupid hats. But there was a spirit of populism at present in the Redditors and retail investors, at least in the beginning. The idea that the system is corrupt and that the elites have far too much power to do with companies as they please.
This much was shown when they tried to drown GameStop, doubled down on it, and called for daddy government to step in.
This much was shown when the financial platforms stepped in and halted or restricted trading of ALL stocks of the companies involved (though, again, I can understand to an extent because they also had financial interest in stopping it. It’s not like Twitter and Facebook deplatforming conservatives just because they can or want to, it was actually in their best financial interest to not have the big investors go further than their minimum margin requirement).
The rich were playing judge, jury and executioner with GameStop, the poorer but many retail investors banded together to keep the big investors from abusing their financial power, and a mini populist financial war began.
I’m not inherently siding with the Redditors and certainly I am not siding with the ruling class who routinely abuse the little guys, but it’s good to see some attempt at unscrewing the system to some extent or another (whether or not that was the intent).
The idea that the rich ought to be able to dictate what companies make it and what companies don’t is not a capitalist one. Capitalism means free markets. Markets manipulated by the rich or by the government or by entities are not free.
We often see this with big tech when they censor conservatives at a moment’s notice, but it applies to much of the system as well.
Ironically, for a moment, the Redditors faced the swamp. The swamp is more than just politicians – it’s unelected people with enough power to dictate and maintain the status quo, which exclusively serves to benefit them.
It’s the people that, in many other facets, those same Redditors side with. I do not have evidence, but I am certain that at least some of those very same Redditors who called out financial platforms like TD and Robinhood for their restricting actions also gleefully saw as President Trump was utterly deplatformed from main stream social media sites.
If possible, I would like to be able to teach these people that the establishment rats and Leftists whom they often support are NOT with them. They are elitist snobs who have shown their utter disdain at the idea that people apart from them are capable of playing their same game.
They often do this to other companies and saw nothing out of the ordinary with doing it to GameStop. But when new players showed up, they did all they could to pick up the ball and go home so that no one got to play.
They charge that the retail investors were “pump and dump”-ing and were manipulating the stock of the company, and to an extent, they were, but they themselves have been doing this for decades. It’s not the game that they are against, but the players whom they believe should not be allowed to play.
Only THEY get to dictate whether a company’s stock plummets or rises. Only THEY get to make obscene amounts of money manipulating stocks.
The fact that that’s the reality is what populists are against. There’s nothing wrong with making money, even insane amounts of it. There is, however, something wrong with having enough power to cause stocks to go in one’s favored direction. There is something wrong with having the ability to short more shares of a stock than are available. There is something wrong with having the ability to financially harm tons of people on a mere whim (and that goes for both sides).
While tens of millions of people lost their jobs and were forced, by their governments, to lock down and close up shops deemed “non-essential”, the world’s elites made billions and billions more.
Your local mom and pop shop, which could hardly have more than 50 people inside it under normal circumstances, was forced to close, but the local Walmart, which could see hundreds or thousands within it, was allowed to operate with few restrictions.
The stock market saw record highs as Americans lost their jobs (and 50,000 more as a result of Occupier Biden’s EO regarding the Keystone XL pipeline), and the elite got even richer.
Again, there’s nothing wrong with making money, even as others are not quite as fortunate. But can we at least agree that the lockdown has tremendously benefited the elites and has outlined the way the system operates: benefiting the 1% almost exclusively?
When the system is this obviously lopsided, it’s no surprise when you see some semblance of populism like we saw with the Reddit investors. There aren’t a whole lot of things that conservatives and liberals can agree on, but I would hope that at least one thing we can agree on is that the ruling class is doing whatever it can to impoverish as many of us as possible.
I mentioned in my last article that the slaveowner mentality of Democrats is still around. Perhaps, I should expand that to the entire ruling class, made up of Democrats and Republicans (who, for the most part, are also part of the swamp and make up The Party) and with regards to all of the peasant class, not just minorities.
The way they have driven the country has been in the direction of the Soviet Union. We are not quite there yet, but we are heading in that direction. After all, they already rigged and successfully stole the 2020 election away from the popular populist president (something I bet many of these Redditors cheered). Being able to do that is no insignificant thing and I hate it when people supposedly on OUR side say that Biden won. He did not win, by any stretch of the imagination. You don’t win an election by sitting in your basement for 90% of the campaign trail. You can only “win” such an election by having your buddies rig things in the right places.
The people now in power are the ones who believe they OUGHT to be in power forever, them and their children and grandchildren. I hope that the rest of us can understand just what it is that we are up against. To an extent, that’s what happened with Trump, seeing as he brought even former Democrats to his side.
We the People need to understand that we are faced with tyrants in many places.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science – not Joe Biden’s record of racism, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency. Biden further diminished the U.S. in the eyes of the world by expanding his travel ban. This new “African Ban” is designed to make it harder for black and brown people to immigrate to the United States. It’s a disgrace, and we cannot let him succeed.
If any of that first paragraph sounds familiar to you, it’s because much of that is what Occupier Biden said about President Trump’s travel bans from Europe and China, back when those were the hotspots of the Chinese coronavirus. Biden accused the president of not leading with science, of having a record of “hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering” and that his “African Ban” was only birthed out of racism to make it more difficult for non-whites to come to the U.S.
And yet, despite all of these charges, Joe Biden is doing pretty much the EXACT same thing that President Trump did regarding traveling during this pandemic. Occupier Biden is banning travel for non-residents in South Africa, much of Europe, the UK, and Brazil.
Clearly, xenophobe Joe Biden is only doing this because he is a racist (and has an extensive record of it) and a xenophobe and not at all because it is the logical thing to do.
NBC News reported on this disgusting racist’s travel ban:
“[Occupier] Joe Biden plans to sign restrictions Monday on travel to the United States to mitigate Covid-19 transmission, two White House officials confirmed Sunday.”
“The ban would prevent most non-U.S. citizens from entry if they have recently been in South Africa, where a new strain of Covid-19 has been identified. The virus has killed more than 418,000 people and infected upward of 25 million across the U.S., according to an NBC News tracker.”
“Biden is also expected to reinstate broader restrictions that were in effect much of the past year but were rescinded by President Donald Trump days before his term ended. The limits would affect non-U.S. citizens traveling from the United Kingdom, Ireland and much of Europe in what is known as the Schengen countries, which share a common visa process. Travelers from Brazil would also be affected.”
Well, clearly, because he is targeting South Africa, which is 80% black, and Brazil, which is 43% multi-racial, the guy is doing this because he is a massive racist and xenophobe.
Two can play at this asinine game of pretending everything is about race. Obviously, this action is a logical one. You don’t want much mobility across different countries when in the middle of a pandemic. Our borders must be thoroughly enforced and travel restricted.
But these are the SAME actions that Trump took at the start of it all (when it mattered the most) and everyone on the Left, including the Occupier himself, attacked him for these actions.
Remember when Joe Biden repeatedly promised that he would do a better job of handling the coronavirus and proceeded to not give a single example of what he would do differently to Trump? Literally two days after inauguration, Joe Biden said: “There is nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.”
Two days in and the guy basically gives up on his promise to “build back better” and to “gain control” of the pandemic. Not a surprising outcome, but what is surprising is how quickly he came to admitting this. Actually, it’s surprising he even admitted it in the first place, but Joe has never exactly been very smart with words… or at all.
It’s no wonder, then, that he enters office with the lowest approval rating for any incoming administration at just 48%. Both Obama and Trump entered office considerably more popular, with 67% and 56% approval, respectively. Whatever “hope” and “change” he promised to Americans throughout his candidacy was pretty much extinguished in less than 48 hours. And whatever actions he does take regarding the virus are not different in any way to how Trump handled it.
The “ideas” he proposed throughout his candidacy are all ideas which Trump either had already brought up days, weeks or months prior, or had already implemented days, weeks, or months prior.
Something I wish Trump had said during at least one of the debates against Biden regarding his handling of the virus is the following: Trump would turn to Biden and say “so what’s your plan to deal with the virus? I haven’t heard it yet and you have yet to tell anyone. The ideas you brought up are things that I already implemented or talked about well before you did, so what’s your plan? It’s not that you would do anything different from me. It’s that you would do the exact same things that I’ve done, only far too late.”
Would something like that have changed the course of the election? Considering the election was outright stolen, I’m compelled to say “no”, but it would have gotten some people, perhaps, to reconsider their (actually legitimate) vote for Biden.
The main thing that Biden ran on is that Trump was screwing everything up regarding the virus. Had Trump pointed out that Biden had either 1) not shared how his plan was different from the president’s and 2) come up with “ideas” which were no different to what Trump was already doing, and that at least does a little *something* regarding how people viewed Trump’s handling of the virus.
But there’s hardly any point in discussing this. The election was already stolen and Biden is the occupier of the oval office.
However, it’s worth pointing out just why it is that no one ought to ever vote for the Left. There are, of course, a million and one reasons to not vote for Leftists, but this is at least one of them: they are liars and hypocrites.
Biden never shared his strategy with dealing with the virus because he had no strategy. Certainly no strategy which was different or better from Trump’s, perhaps with the only differences being the imposition of unconstitutional (and unenforceable) mask mandates and the shuttering of the economy, which no one can reasonably argue are good strategies. Even then, those are not Biden’s own ideas (though he is known as a serial plagiarizer) and are things other politicians, both state governors and foreign leaders, have implemented.
Now, a liberal might, for some reason, argue that Biden didn’t share his strategy “because he didn’t want Trump to steal it and take credit for it.” Okay, but if the strategy was better, why wouldn’t he want to share it with THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?! Even if he’s running against him, why would he withhold a strategy that could potentially save hundreds of thousands of lives (btw, this is on the erroneous presumption that the virus is as deadly as they say it is)?
Wouldn’t it have been the right thing to share those ideas and strategies anyway, even if Trump stole them and took credit for them? I thought Biden was the nice and decent and considerate candidate who was basically Jesus’ long lost brother, or something?
So either Biden had no strategy whatsoever and just lied to people to get them to vote for him, or he prioritized winning an election over people’s lives. Either way, he doesn’t exactly come off as decent or someone who ought to hold any kind of office.
In a just world, he certainly wouldn’t, that’s for sure.
But since he does hold office, illegitimate as it may be, I have no intention of being merciful or graceful with the demon. Why would I not call him a racist and xenophobe for instituting these travel bans which heavily impact people of color? It’s what he did to Trump. Why would I give him any sort of grace or credit? He never showed any to his political opponent.
Joe Biden is a massive racist anyway, as I have already pointed out. This move, I consider to have been done due to race. Joe Biden wants to keep black and brown people out of the country and this much proves it.
Democrats set up these rules, I’m just doing my part to force them to play by them.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Throughout the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, we have seen case after case of Democrat politicians proclaiming the necessity of wearing masks and adhering to social distancing/staying at home rules so that we might “protect” our fellow citizens, all the while they are themselves not even coming close to adhering to the very rules they set for everyone else.
This, totally expectedly, is no different for the occupier of the oval office Joe Biden, who was seen visibly not wearing a mask when he visited the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday evening, despite the fact that he had, earlier in the day, signed an executive order mandating the wearing of masks on federal property (as well as in public transit systems like airplanes, trains, etc.).
The occupant had even tweeted earlier on Wednesday: “Wearing a mask isn’t a partisan issue – it’s a patriotic act that can save countless lives. That’s why I signed an executive order today issuing a mask mandate on federal property. It’s time to mask up, America.”
All bullcrap, of course, seeing as masks have not demonstrably saved lives and that the vast majority of people in all 50 states routinely wear masks. Even the state where the least amount of people wear masks, Wyoming, sees roughly 80% of people wearing them, so the premise that Americans were not wearing their masks for the most part is an outright lie.
What also makes that bullcrap is that he, himself, chose not to wear a mask in a place where he mandated people wear masks.
Now, the liberal might argue: “But Biden was vaccinated, so he doesn’t need to wear a mask.” Really? You don’t need to wear a mask after you’ve been vaccinated? Because the oh, so revered Dr. Anthony Fauci proclaimed to the world in his "infinite wisdom" that people still had to wear masks even after people are vaccinated. In fact, he proclaimed that not a damn thing would change with regards to the Chinese coronavirus guidelines even after most people got the vaccine. This is the first I’m hearing that one does not need to wear a mask after they’ve been vaccinated.
Besides, it’s not like Biden went the entire time without wearing a mask, either. Someone who tweeted a C-SPAN feed of Biden at the Lincoln Memorial noted that he “wore his mask immediately prior to this and put it back on as soon as he finished his TV hit.”
So he only took off his mask for television? Isn’t that counterintuitive to what he had been pushing? Beyond the outright hypocrisy of not wearing a mask on federal property immediately following his signing an executive order banning precisely that kind of behavior, isn’t it idiotic to not wear a mask specifically for television?
I could have sworn there were people who demanded President Trump wear his mask on TV to encourage Americans to do the same (because apparently, we all have to do what the president does), so what’s the point in Biden taking off his mask specifically for television?
Furthermore, Biden addressed the media without wearing a mask, despite the fact that all the media people present were wearing their masks.
And even more than that, Biden’s family, who were with him at the Lincoln Memorial (seeing as this all took place at the occupier’s illegitimate inauguration, so it makes sense that they were there) were also visibly not wearing masks on federal property.
Another aspect that is also hilariously hypocritical is that Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in her first press conference: “To combat the deadly virus, the [occupier] launched his 100-day masking challenge, asking Americans to do their part and mask up for 100 days. He’s doing his part as well, issuing a mask mandate that will require anyone visiting a federal building or federal land, or using certain modes of public transportation to wear a mask.”
The hypocritical aspect of this, you ask? She said this at a press conference without wearing a mask herself. President Trump’s Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany was repeatedly hounded for not wearing a mask during press conferences.
Again, not a bit of this is unexpected. Given the multiple cases throughout the many months of Democrats demanding and even forcing people to wear a mask, social distance, not leave their homes or not going places that are outside of a certain mile radius of their homes, and then going on to ignore literally ALL of those things themselves, it’s not surprising to see the current “king” of the Democrats himself being this hypocritical.
And you would think, being the “president of the united states” (no, I’m not capitalizing the words for Biden, even if they are in quotation marks. He doesn’t deserve even that much), and particularly being as old as he is, they would want him to take care of himself and wear his mask as often as possible, right? After all, even in this article, we are told that “masks save lives” and are an effective tool against this “deadly virus”, so why wouldn’t Biden wear his mask 24/7, particularly given the position he illegitimately holds?
All of this to show to everyone, for the millionth time, how much of a farce this whole thing is. No, I’m not saying the virus is a hoax, but what everyone says about the virus is a hoax. It’s not a particularly deadly virus (99.7% of people survive it and that’s on the low end) and the policies that have been put into place to “deal” with the virus have not demonstrably done anything to actually protect people’s lives.
Particularly regarding the lockdowns, which I consider to be the worst and most egregious policy that has been put into place in most states, as it not only is ineffective with dealing with the pandemic (the WHO said as much), but it also has killed tens of millions of jobs and ruined countless small businesses, all the while big corporations benefited tremendously from it (that vaunted crony capitalism that socialists claim they fight against but often find themselves participating in it gleefully).
Tyrannical and moronic, at best, governors have choked/are choking their states to “protect” them from this “deadly virus.”
To repeat an analogy I have previously used, it’s like asphyxiating someone to save them from the mild poison that they accidentally drank. That is, of course, assuming that these governors are doing what they are doing because they are stupid but trying to save people, not evil and without a care in the world about what happens to people.
For crying out loud, Cuomo, Whitmer and even one of Biden’s new cabinet members (that ugly tranny) have all either directly ordered sick people be placed in retirement/nursing homes or have successfully convinced their governor to put sick people in retirement/nursing homes (and the tranny even pulled his own mother out of a nursing home to save her from what he KNEW would lead to certain death for residents of those homes, showing how utterly evil some of these people, particularly that person, are).
They ALL knew what would be the effect of putting sick people in nursing homes, demonstrating how utterly undeserving of their jobs they are. At best, they are massive freaking morons who don’t know basic biology or common sense and didn’t know what would happen if you put sick people with those whose immune systems are not what they used to be, and at worst, they are actual serial killers who committed relatively small genocides against their states’ elderly population as if this was Logan’s Run.
Either way, such people should not be in places of power and given the events of the 2020 election, I hardly think many of these people are even legitimately in power.
In any case, once again, it’s not even a little surprising to see the Democrat occupier ignoring the very mandate he signed just hours prior. The only thing that’s surprising, perhaps, is the speed at which he broke his own rules. I imagine the other Democrat hypocrite tyrants at least took a while for them to have broken their own rules (either that, or it just took a while for them to be caught, which is a possibility).
Of course, it certainly won’t matter and the fake news media will cover for the guy like they had been doing over the last year and a half and throughout the time he was the Vice President, but it’s worth pointing out the sheer hypocrisy and b.s. of the Left. People notice this stuff and that matters, in my opinion.
“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?”
This is the third “Meet X” article I have written which demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of the fake news media, the Left, and BLM Inc. (but I repeat myself) when discussing unjust killings of people.
First, there was Ryan Whitaker, who was killed by police officers back in May of 2020, but whose story was not widely reported because Ryan was a white man and the narrative surrounding police is that they only kill black people.
Then, there was Cannon Hinnant, who was a five-year-old white kid executed by his black neighbor while riding his bicycle. His story was not widely reported because 1) the kid was white and 2) the killer is black. CNN, by the way, now has three stories where they mention Cannon Hinnant, and egregiously, they dare include the following paragraph in the last story where they mentioned him: “And in the midst of the same racial unrest experienced throughout the rest of the country, our collective hearts were broken over the senseless killing of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant, who was White. Though the suspect, a Black man, was apprehended… many people in Wilson and throughout the country politicized this tragedy to counter the legitimacy of those protesting generations of institutionalized and overt racism…”
First of all, their hearts did not break over the killing of Cannon, because they took their sweet freaking time talking about Cannon, their first story was the length of 222 words, and have now mentioned George Floyd over 2,200 times in their own articles. And, by the way, this latest article wasn’t about Hinnant himself, but about elections in North Carolina.
Second of all, a bit rich to accuse others of politicizing that tragedy considering JUST WHO THE HELL THESE PEOPLE ARE. The media narrative is that white people are racist and black people are oppressed by them and their racism. That story ran contrary to that narrative, so they swept it under the rug as much as possible in order to focus on things which help their own agenda. Invert the races in that story and you would watch a nation cry for justice, as it should. But because Hinnant was white and his killer is black, that story is not only buried, but ATTACKED as being a political tool for countering “the legitimacy of protesting generations of… racism.” What a load of utter bullcrap, but what can you expect from the demons at CNN?
At any rate, now that that’s out of the way, let’s talk about Robert Howard, who himself was killed by a cop for no apparent reason whatsoever.
Robert Howard was a 30-year-old black man, who was killed by a Memphis police officer on January 5th, with the officer reportedly having forced Howard into his squad car and executing him while on duty.
According to WREG Memphis, “Patrick Ferguson, 29, is charged with first-degree murder, including aggravated kidnapping, tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in the death of 30-year-old Robert Howard.”
Memphis police released a statement on Sunday outlining the allegations. “On Jan. 6, Howard’s girlfriend called police to report him missing. He had last been seen around 5 p.m. the day before in the 3500 block of Mark Twain Street in Frayser.”
“Police said an investigation revealed that Ferguson, armed with a handgun, encountered Howard outside his residence and forced him into his squad car. The two knew each other, police said.”
“Ferguson then drove to Frayser Boulevard and Denver Street, where he shot and killed Howard, according to MPD.”
“Another man, 28-year-old Joshua Rogers, also is charged with tampering with evidence and abuse of a corpse in this case. Police say he was an acquaintance of Ferguson and helped him relocate the body.”
Assuming we have just about the full story here, what we have is a pretty gruesome and awful situation. A man was seemingly minding his own business when a police officer, whom Howard knew, used force to get him into the back of his squad car and, at some point, killed him and abused his corpse, with the help of an “acquaintance” of the officer who helped the officer move the body.
Howard does not seem to have committed a crime here and was seemingly just kidnapped. The only thing I really question here is that “acquaintance” status for Rogers, seeing as no acquaintance would just help someone with getting rid of a body. I imagine, if Ferguson didn’t really know Rogers all that well, that Ferguson paid Rogers to help him with that.
But at any rate, why do you think the fake news media didn’t cover this or that BLM hasn’t made this a massive spectacle? Now, you might guess that the date of these events had something to do with it. Howard was kidnapped and, likely, killed on January 5th, when the biggest subject was the Georgia run-off elections. He was reported as missing on the 6th, when the biggest subject was the pro-Trump protest which eventually led to some people rioting and storming Capitol Hill (while some also seemingly were just allowed to go in).
However, stories like these usually don’t get reported until a good deal later, so the vast majority of people were not even aware that this had happened. WREG initially posted the story on January 10th, so not that long ago. One could argue that a couple of days is not enough for BLM and the fake news media to make a big deal out of this, but here’s the thing: they won’t make a big deal out of this no matter how much time passes.
The reason for this is simple: both the officer who kidnapped and killed Howard, Patrick Ferguson, and the officer’s “acquaintance” accomplice, Joshua Rogers, are black themselves.
Without that fact, the story of a black man killed by a cop, particularly when it was almost certainly an illegitimate execution, would make national news and BLM would demand you to “say his name” and sports athletes would take a knee supposedly in his honor. But that narrative doesn’t really work very well if the police officer who carries on such an illegal execution is black himself.
The narrative only works if the following parameters are met: the “victim” (sometimes, they actually are the victim, such as in Howard's case, but not most of the time) is black and the officer(s) is/are white.
As with the case of Ryan Whitaker, the cops that undoubtedly extrajudicially killed him hardly matter because the first parameter was not met. Whitaker was shot and killed by a white police officer, but because he was, himself, white, his story was not told.
And with Cannon Hinnant, though it wasn’t a police-involved killing, it does involve race in a way. The killer was black and the victim was white. The narrative of black people being oppressed and white people being the oppressors doesn’t work here, so it’s largely ignored, and when people point out that fact and the hypocrisy that goes alongside it, the fake news media acts as though those people are just playing political games.
It’s really quite disgusting the way in which the “free” press acts in this country. Only *certain* groups of people get a story about them made into a big deal. Even then, only if *certain* conditions are met. If a white man is killed by a white cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. If a white man is killed by a black cop, the story definitely doesn’t get covered. If a black man is killed by a black cop, the story doesn’t get covered a whole lot. Only if a black man is killed by a white cop does the story get plenty of coverage.
And the reason for the killing doesn’t really matter. They made Rayshard Brooks into a big story, despite the fact that he had stolen a cop’s taser and tried to use it against him. They made Michael Brown a big story despite the fact that he quite literally tried to beat a cop with his own squad car’s door. They made George Floyd into a big story because, despite the fact he was not really a threat to the officers, he died in their custody (and despite the fact that he was later discovered to have been under the influence of drugs and he overdosed).
But if a black man is brutally and extrajudicially executed by a black cop, that story doesn’t get much outrage and outcry and coverage despite how absolutely awful that is.
Now, I can suspect the motive for the killing in the first place. Ferguson and Howard, as WREG reported, knew one another, so this clearly wasn’t a random kidnapping and execution. If I had to guess, it might have had to do with some unpaid debt or some sort of strife between the two men. But the fact of the matter remains that a cop kidnapped and killed a person for any given reason. That idea ought to frighten people, regardless of motive. And the officer should well face serious charges and, if found guilty, face serious consequences.
But despite the fact that such an astoundingly disgusting thing happened, the incident doesn’t help the narrative of the Left. Granted, they are currently trying to just orchestrate a not-so silent coup against the President of the United States, so I think that even if the cop had been white in this scenario, this story likely would not have been talked about much, but the point remains that they will not cover even extrajudicial executions of people by police if a narrative cannot be drawn from it to advance their agenda.
The fake news media disgusts me to my core.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.”
Allow me to better explain what I say in that title. I’m not saying that the students support churches being allowed to reopen – they very much want them closed, at least most of them do. I am saying, however, that they recognize, to some extent, that it is hypocritical of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to allow some places to reopen, like college campuses and some businesses, while forcing churches and synagogues to remain closed. So, in all, I am at least glad that they can recognize the hypocrisy of the governor.
At any rate, let’s get to the Campus Reform video (below). In this video, Campus Reform has Addison Smith reporting at, presumably, a New York college (they don’t mention which one).
Smith begins by noting that during this pandemic, particularly during the summer, we have seen plenty of protests (and riots, though he doesn’t mention that) over the death of George Floyd while in police custody, and notes that that was happening while multiple states were simultaneously pushing heavy lockdown restrictions on businesses and other types of gatherings, such as religious gatherings. He then goes on to ask if the protests should have been condemned for being allowed to violate the same orders that other people had to follow, or if they were rightfully exempted.
One of the students said that “You can’t really outright ban the ability to, you know, assembly and protest, but what we believe is that they should’ve, sort of, restricted it in a way… like enforce social distancing.”
So this student believes that, as it is recognized in the constitution, the states cannot outright ban assembly and protest, but the government should have been able to enforce, at the very least, social distancing a bit more. To which I somewhat agree. I do not have an issue with the protests themselves (I have plenty of issue with the riots, of course, since no one has the right to do that), and the protestors have the right to protest. What I have an issue with is the blatant double standard that governors were cool with people not social distancing and, in some cases, not wearing masks (both Schumer and Lightfoot were seen not wearing masks during a celebration following Biden’s “win”), saying that those gatherings are allowed because of the purpose of the gathering being important to those people or important to society.
Gathering for worship is also important for the people who do so/desire to do so, and it definitely is also important to society since Psalm 33:12 says: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His inheritance!” A nation which turns its back to God is not a nation blessed by God, so for the sake of the American society, it is important that we worship God, and part of that means being allowed to do so in churches. No, it is not necessary for people to worship God in churches, as a church is wherever at least two Christians gather to worship, but corporate worship of God is considerably better when done in one’s local church building.
The protesters have the right to protest, as it is detailed in the First Amendment. The First Amendment also recognizes freedom of religion, and restricting church gatherings in this way is not only hypocritical but also a restriction of people’s First Amendment rights. If this were a disease like the plague, Christians would know to take the best precautions available and would be willing to forego going to church so as to not needlessly gather. But this virus is nowhere near as deadly as many claim it is, with a 99.97% survival rate for most people. There are more dangerous things out there, but we are willing to go to church anyway despite those risks. So why can’t we be allowed to go to church over the Chinese coronavirus, particularly when others are allowed to gather, in massive numbers, to protest the death of a very troubled man?
This is a constant theme throughout this article and even throughout the overarching argument. The woman who answers after the first student says that the protesters were “rightfully exempted”, but even she ultimately recognizes that if they are allowed to physically attend college, that people should be allowed to go to church.
Another student said: “I think… you should listen to the rules but I also think… if you really believe in what you say and you think… you’re, uh, being treated unfairly, I do think there is maybe some wiggle room with that.”
I also somewhat agree with this student. I think people should listen to the rules (when they make sense, at least), but it is still hypocritical to allow people who say they are being treated unfairly to be allowed so much wiggle room so as to outright JUSTIFY AND DEFEND the very actions which have been disparaged when done by others.
Before the George Floyd protests and riots, there were anti-lockdown protests. The Left disparaged and attacked those protesters, saying they were putting themselves and others at risk by gathering in such a way, even if they were wearing masks (and many of them were). The George Floyd protesters did pretty much the same exact thing, but because it was a favorable narrative to the Left, they were allowed to happen.
I don’t mind following the rules (that make sense), but you can’t expect me to be willing to just accept such blatant double standards. If anti-lockdown protesters aren’t allowed to protest, then neither are George Floyd protesters. If George Floyd protesters are allowed to protest, then so are anti-lockdown protesters.
And according to this kid’s line of thinking, if Christians gather because we believe in what we are saying and because we believe we are being treated unfairly (and we are in many places), then there should be allowed some wiggle room in the rules to allow us to gather together for our cause.
Humans don’t tend to like injustice when we see it. It’s why we have gotten rid of slavery. It’s why we have done away with segregation (though the woke people out there seem to be, at best inadvertently, wanting to go back to segregation of the races for the “benefit” of black people). It’s why looking at Joe Biden be illegitimately called President-elect infuriates me to no end.
Protesters are allowed to protest (not riot, and don’t let anyone tell you there is no difference); the cause should not be what determines whether one kind of protest is allowed and another disallowed.
At any rate, the woman who earlier said the George Floyd protests were “rightfully exempt” also went on to say: “I think the reason for pandemic lockdown is because people are dying and, like, prioritizing the group of people dying that includes white people versus just black people is… I think you kind of have to put pandemic regulations on the same level as protesting for George Floyd.”
Now, I don’t know what her point is in bringing up the white people vs. the black people in relations to the Chinese virus, but basically she is saying that protesting for George Floyd is just as important as the regulations, meaning that the regulations should not prevent those protests.
But again, how is it fair to allow the George Floyd protests over the anti-lockdown protests or the church gatherings? Why is it okay for one group of people to gather for one reason, but another group of people cannot be allowed to gather for a different reason?
And if the protests and regulations are important, and the regulations exist because “people are dying” then doesn’t that mean that allowing the protests to happen means those are acceptable deaths? Do their lives no longer matter in terms of protecting them from the virus because they want to go out and protest what they perceive to be racial injustice?
Of course, the vast majority of the protesters will live because the virus is very survivable, but that’s not a point liberals tend to make. When talking about the virus, they view it strictly through the lens of it being deadly (thanks in part to Cuomo himself saying that “the virus is death” in one of his press conferences). So if the virus is so deadly, then why allow for “grieving black people” to gather and protest, risking catching this deadly virus?
When the protesters are allowed to protest, that means that their right to protest supersedes the lockdown orders. It’s not true, at all, that they are “on the same level”. Lockdown orders and protests are antithetical to one another, and when one is prioritized over another, that leaves an imbalance. By their very definitions, they cannot be on the same level.
It’d be like saying that planes are allowed to fly, but can’t be allowed to take off. If you’re allowing the planes to fly, by definition, you have to disregard the take-off restrictions.
At any rate, getting to the question of Cuomo banning religious gatherings but allowing other things like liquor stores and other businesses to open, many students noted how hypocritical Cuomo was and how wrong it was for him to do that.
One of the students pressed the issue of thinking about others and not just ourselves, which does not really answer Smith’s question and does not answer why churches should be closed but George Floyd protests should be allowed to happen. Again, if the virus is as deadly as they say it is and we should be thinking about others and not just ourselves, then why allow protesters to gather? Don’t their lives matter? Doesn’t their safety matter? Are they selfishly thinking about only themselves when they gather in such a way? And if not, then why am I thinking about only myself for wanting to go to church but they aren’t only thinking about themselves for wanting to protest? Why is it different for the two situations?
If it’s because of the cause, that’s an awful reason. It means that only *certain* kinds of people have rights and others do not. It’s the Animal Farm quote of “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” It’s bullcrap inequality and anyone with a brain could recognize that.
The cause of “racial injustice” should not supersede my cause of worshipping the Lord and growing His Kingdom. The cause of Joe Biden’s “victory” should not supersede my cause of wanting to reopen so that people don’t starve to death.
Now, interestingly enough, that very same student also went on to say that the governments should NOT be forcing churches to close, and it should be up to the churches themselves whether or not they wish to close or remain open, which I 100% agree with. If a church’s leadership thinks that there is a great risk for the people in the congregation (one of the churches I used to frequent in Florida was almost entirely comprised of older people, so I suspect they chose to close down at least for a while), then they have every right to decide to close. But that decision should not be taken away from them. If a church’s leadership does not think that there is great risk to the congregation, and the community around them, then they should be allowed to remain open.
It's about weighing the risks versus the benefits, and that decision should be left up to church leadership, not the government, regardless of whether or not they are well-meaning.
To end things, since this article is long enough as it is, Smith asked if Cuomo overstepped the boundaries of his power, and the students pretty much all agreed, and that churches have the right to remain open with proper Chinese virus guidelines.
So I am glad to see that the students of this New York college (whichever one it is) can recognize that, even if they still support lockdowns, churches should not be forced to close down particularly when other things such as college campuses and businesses are allowed to reopen.
Here’s hoping they further develop their reasoning skills and come to recognize how utterly hypocritical and damaging the Leftist ideology is.
“Blessed are the people of whom this is so; blessed are the people whose God is the Lord.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...