In this day and age, we never run short of examples of media or overall Leftist hypocrisy. However, this case is one that particularly grinds my gears because it is a story relating to sexual assault, pedophilia and protecting the elites who often act as though they are above the law (and in some cases, unfortunately, are above the law, at least the law of Man).
Back when then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was facing an onslaught of ever-crazier stories of sexual assault, rape and misconduct, ABC News was one of the main headliners of these stories, running multiple reports of these allegations, including the most bombastic one: Julie Swetnick’s. If you remember, her story included multiple parties that she had attended some 30 or 40 years prior where in each and every one, she alleges there were “rape trains” occurring but ultimately could not remember if Kavanaugh was one of the guys who allegedly participated in it.
I said that that one was likely the single craziest one and least credible one of them all (few, if any, were credible, with Ford’s being the most likely to have been credible and even then, there were many question marks about her testimony), and yet, ABC News ran with the story as though it was 100% credible and as though there was sufficient evidence in the story to run it.
Keep that last point in mind, as it will be important later on.
In any case, that is what the fake news organization, ABC News, attempted to do to Kavanaugh: smear him with any and all allegations of heinous acts of rape and sexual misconduct. And yet, according to a recent bombshell video from Project Veritas, the same people who pushed for the crazy and unverified allegations against Kavanaugh decided not to report on the heinous, more credible, and more provable actions of now-deceased Democrat mega-donor Jeffrey Epstein.
In a leaked video, ABC News anchor Amy Robach said the following on a hot mic:
“I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (one of Epstein’s alleged victims and accusers). We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein?’, ‘No one knows who that is,’, ‘This is a stupid story.’ Then the (Royal) Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew (who was implicated in the Epstein story) and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will, that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes. [Roberts] told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had, (Bill) Clinton, we had everything.”
“I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new relevant revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now, like every day I get more and more pissed because I’m like, oh my God, what we had was unreal. Other women backing it up. Brad Edwards, the attorney (for the alleged victims), three years ago saying like, ‘there will come a day [when] we will realize Jeffrey was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.’ I had it all three years ago.”
Of course, this bombshell of a leaked video had to be addressed by both Amy and her employer, ABC News, particularly because of how bad this makes them look as a news organization. This is extremely similar to the NBC News story where they had the opportunity to report on Harvey Weinstein’s rapes and sexual assaults but chose to bury the story.
In any case, here is Amy Robach’s statement regarding the leaked footage and what she said on the hot mic:
“As a journalist, as the Epstein story continued to unfold last summer, I was caught in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations. My comments about Prince Andrew and her allegation that she had seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s private islands were in reference to what Virginia Roberts said in that interview in 2015. I was referencing her allegations – not what ABC News had verified through our reporting. The interview itself, while I was disappointed it didn’t air, didn’t meet our standards. In the years since no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
And here’s ABC News’ statement reflecting something similar to Robach’s:
“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story. Ever since we’ve had a team on this investigation and substantial resources dedicated to it. That work had led to a two-hour documentary and 6-part podcast that will air in the new year.”
One key element in both statements is the allegation that ABC News has any sort of editorial standards. I, presently, cannot find any corroborating evidence of such an allegation, given what they considered to be “news-worthy” enough for these people to run.
Again, they ran the extremely poor and hilariously bad allegation from JULIE SWETNICK. She alleged something insane, where she expected people to believe she would go to a party held by the same high schoolers (she was in college) around ten different times, knowing after the first experience that “rape trains” would occur and STILL went. And ALL OF THAT just to eventually reveal that she wasn’t even sure whether or not Kavanaugh, the subject in question and the one being marred as a serial rapist and sexual abuser, actually participated in any of the sexual assaults or rapes that allegedly occurred at those parties.
Not only was her testimony extremely suspicious and completely incredible (as in, not credible at all), but she ultimately couldn’t even really allege much about THE GUY THESE PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO PAINT AS A RAPIST DEMON and they STILL ran her story as though she were sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole world needed to hear her story, despite the fact that Swetnick had no corroborating evidence to anything she was alleging.
The statement from Robach even sounds almost like she had a gun to her head from her employers if she didn’t try and correct the record or issue some sort of clarification that would save ABC News’ face to some degree. It sounds extremely forced and for good reason: ABC News wishes they could bury this story like they did the Epstein one.
The Epstein story, having heavily implicated both Prince Andrew and former President Bill Clinton (Clinton had traveled in Epstein’s private jets and the pilot logs frequently note that underage girls would accompany him and Epstein, painting Clinton as even more of a sexual assaulter and demon than he already was due to the Broaddrick, Lewisnky and Paula Jones scandals), would’ve hurt the Democrats, particularly then-hopeful Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
Yet another story implicating Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct would’ve only piled on more to Hillary’s inability to be an electable candidate. The e-mails and the already-known sexual assault allegations made against Bill were bad enough, the last thing the Democrat Party needed was yet another story where “the comeback kid” (a nickname that now sounds so horrible when you think about it) likely could have raped not only more women, but underage girls.
This is the utterly despicable hypocrisy the Left-wing media possesses. If a prominent right-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, it is treated as fact despite all the lacking evidence and even despite any semblance of credibility. Kavanaugh has been forever marred as a rapist and sexual assaulter by these people. His reputation has been eternally tarnished.
But if a prominent left-winger gets accused of sexual misconduct, no matter the available evidence or the credibility of the accusation, the story gets buried, ignored and the left-winger continues to be paraded around as a “woke” character who is of great moral standing.
Beyond the fact that this is horrendously hypocritical, what’s even worse is the fact that this only puts sexual assault victims and future victims at risk. Real stories will go unreported because of the fake ones that gain national attention and get recognized as fake and young girls are led to believe that these Democrats are good and kind-hearted people, eager to help you with anything you need and can be wholly trusted regarding anything.
It puts young girls at risk of being raped and their testimony shut down. It covers for sexual assaulters and rapists and leaves vulnerable girls at risk of it happening to them in the future. Let’s not forget that the Katie Hill story was covered like the Clinton impeachment story was: that it was just about sex. It wasn’t just about sex. It was about having sex with a subordinate, which goes against House ethics rules, and about sexually abusing the subordinate and pimping her out to the representative’s husband. There were PHOTOGRAPHS of this occurring and the media treated Katie Hill like SHE was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Meanwhile, no attention is paid to how her victims feel about the entire fiasco, no attention is paid to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton (and others) because the allegations made are against the people these Leftists in the media support and favor.
ABC News should feel utterly ashamed at what they are doing and what they have done, but we know good and well that they have no shame to feel. They’ll sweep this whole ordeal under the rug and go on to continue to report highly incredible allegations against right-wingers where they might pop up and continue to report on how “screwed” Trump is due to the impeachment scam.
These people make me sick.
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The socialist lunatic Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular Democrat candidates for college students, enjoying 31% total approval and a three-point lead over Elizabeth Warren in a College Pulse election tracker poll. I can’t say I’m surprised, considering the socialist training camp that colleges and universities are in this day and age.
Regardless, as he is a very popular candidate, when students were asked to guess how much money Bernie gave to charity (with him being a millionaire and railing against the 1% for not “paying their fair share”), they believed he gave a good amount of his money to charity. After all, if he himself is so seemingly passionate about millionaires and billionaires giving as much money as possible, he ought to lead by example, right?
Answers to the question varied, with some believing he gave around 7 or 10% of his total income, some believing he gave upwards of 20%, and one believing he gave 75% of his total income to charity.
Clearly, with the sort of message Bernie gives, he is expected to live by the very ethos he spews. But the students were ultimately shocked to find that Bernie Sanders gave very little of his money to charity. As in, absurdly little, even by millionaire standards.
You see, according to tax returns that were released earlier this year, Bernie Sanders made $1,073,333 in a single year. Clearly, he’s doing pretty well for himself. Now, can you guess how much of that he actually gave to charity? Given the title, you might expect very little. Maybe 5%, or 4% or even 1%.
Well, he gave only $10,600. That’s less than 1%. More specifically, he gave 0.98% of his money to charity.
A few students acknowledged that it was “hypocritical” of Bernie to preach about the rich paying their “fair share” when he, himself, gives so little to charity.
Another student, funny enough, seemed to have retracted some of her support for Bernie after finding out the truth about his greed. Earlier in the video, she had said that she thinks he’s “definitely progressive… I think he’s what our country needs at this point.” However, she later backtracked that support by saying: “I’m not a particular Bernie fan.”
She also acknowledged the hypocrisy surrounding Bernie in this instance.
Another student even went so far as to roast Bernie for it, saying: “Well, he’s always talking about the one percent, maybe that’s the one percent he gave to charity.”
Now, one student defended Bernie, saying that it’s “his money, he can do what he wants with it.” Generally speaking, I agree. People should be allowed to do what they want with the money they earn. However, when they do that while simultaneously telling others how they CAN’T do that and how they HAVE to pay their “fair share”, then that comes across as highly hypocritical and utterly phony.
It’s sort of like this whole situation with China and the NBA. NBA players can speak freely and criticize whomever they want, but will shut up when doing so would affect their bank accounts. You can’t call Trump a “dictator” while also ignoring the actual dictatorial behavior and actions of Xi “Winnie the Pooh” Jinping.
You can’t lecture the 1% about “paying their fair share” when you give LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR OWN MONEY TO CHARITY! And yet, that’s precisely what Bernie Sanders does.
It’s disgustingly hypocritical and he should be called out on it and forced to address it. “Why do you talk about the 1% paying their ‘fair share’ when you yourself gave less than 1% of your money to charity? Would it be fair to say that you are not paying your ‘fair share’, then, by your own logic, Senator Sanders?” That’s the kind of question I would LOVE to hear from any reporter or journalist who actually had a spine, but we won’t, sadly.
Another student also came to Bernie’s defense, somewhat, by saying: “I don’t believe that the best way to help the poor is by giving to charity… The best way to support the poor is through systematic intervention – government intervention.”
Yeah, I believe the Venezuelan people, Chinese people, Russian people, Cuban people and any people who live under communist rule would want a word with you, fella.
How exactly does government intervention help the poor? By killing two infants after visiting a “wellness” clinic run by the government and having 24 other infants in “critical condition”? Because that’s what happened in communist Cuba recently.
By killing infant children despite the wishes of the parents just because the doctors deem further treatment to be “futile”? Because that’s what’s happening in Great Britain.
By having 90% of the population living in poverty? Because that’s what’s happening in Venezuela, according to a UN report.
How exactly does government intervention help anyone in anything? All we ever see, historically, is what a massive mistake it is to give the government so much control over people’s lives and livelihoods.
The government doesn’t lift people out of poverty; it does the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t create – it only takes and destroys.
But getting back on the topic of Bernie Sanders, it’s pretty obvious that he is a massive hypocrite. If the fact he owns three homes wasn’t enough of an indication of that reality, or the fact that he made over a million dollars in a year, or the fact that, as a result of being a millionaire, he went from saying millionaires shouldn’t get tax breaks in 2015 to attacking millionaires and billionaires in 2016 and ’17 and then attacking only billionaires in 2019, then surely, the fact that he only gives 1% of his money to charity ought to spell it out pretty clearly.
Unfortunately, most Bernie supporters will not care to find out how much (or little) Bernie gave to charity, only taking in the words he speaks and believing them to be gospel, or will outright not believe it when someone reveals how little he gives to charity, so it’s not like this is going to hurt his candidacy so much.
However, you and I know the truth about Bernie Sanders: he’s the very “greedy capitalist” he demonizes and claims to despise. Even more so, considering the average millionaire gives 5.6% of his money to charity and Bernie gives so little, even by that comparison.
And while spreading that news around might not hurt him very much, it’s rather clear that at least some people might be a bit more hesitant about Bernie in the future. Again, one of the students said that Bernie was what we “needed” before finding out how little he gave and went on to say she wasn’t much of a “Bernie fan”.
Yeah, one could argue she was just trying to save face, but who knows how many people might find this truth about him and rethink their support for Bernie? Again, it likely wouldn’t be a lot, given that a couple of people in the Campus Reform video itself (below) came to Bernie’s defense in one way or the other, but not everyone thinks the same way.
The first step is education. The Left has taken that over and is the biggest reason for any success over the last 50 years.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The New York Times, ever-so full of integrity and without a shred of disgusting hypocrisy to be found, discovered a YouTube video made by pro-Trump meme-maker Carpe Donktum that depicts the character of a movie called Kingsman: The Secret Service with a superimposed picture of Trump on him killing various people inside a church who all have pictures of various news organizations, Left-wing organizations and even Leftist politicians superimposed on to them.
The video, as it featured a superimposed Trump committing violent acts against the media and his typical critics, drew outrage from said media people.
CNN released a statement that said: “Sadly, this is not the first time that supporters of the President have promoted violence against the media in a video they apparently find entertaining – but it is by far and away the worst. The images depicted are vile and horrific. The President and his family, the White House, and the Trump campaign need to denounce it immediately in the strongest possible terms. Anything less equates to a tacit endorsement of violence and should not be tolerated by anyone.”
Well, the White House did issue a statement on it denouncing the violence depicted in the video, which they claim has not been seen by the President. But here are a few things to note about this whole ordeal:
First of all, the video had been up for 16 MONTHS on YouTube before this. The only reason it’s being brought to anyone’s attention is because it was played at the American Priority Conference, a pro-Trump conference in Trump’s Doral resort. However, the video was not played to the public. It was played on a couple of screens inside a big, empty room and the video itself had less than 100,000 views on YouTube before the NYT brought attention to it.
Second, what a load of crap CNN is. The past “promotions of violence against the media” they describe are, at worst, depicting Trump doing wrestling moves against the media. Back in July of 2017, CNN cried “foul” over a meme by Carpe Donktum that shows Trump wrestling someone with the CNN logo superimposed on them. It was pure entertainment and very obviously fake.
Third, how is it that the video of Trump being depicted killing MSM and political opponents is considered a depiction of violence, but the actual movie that had a guy kill church-goers (who had been driven mad by a chemical released by an environmentalist super-villain) is not considered a depiction of violence against church-goers?
Similarly, what about the countless times members of ANTIFA have physically assaulted Trump supporters, members of the media (if you want to talk about violence against the media), elderly people and all-around anyone they can possibly find to try and intimidate because they are terrorists? Is that not considered violence?
Or what about the Trump rendition of “Julius Caesar” that was SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES that shows a character whose likeness resembles Trump an awful lot being assassinated, Julius Caesar style, and calling that art? Is that not considered a depiction of violence?
And what about Snoop Dogg making a music video where he “shoots” someone who is very clearly supposed to represent Donald Trump, with a suit, a red tie, blonde hair, an orange face and clown make-up? Doesn’t that depict an “act of violence” against Trump?
All of these things either go unreported by the fake news media or are SUPPORTED by the fake news media as being “art” or “entertainment” or something else. I still remember MSNBC host Nicole Wallace saying that ANTIFA were “good people” on “the side of angels” for what they did at Charlottesville.
Tell me what’s worse: a very obvious meme video of Trump “killing” fake news and political opponents, or actual acts of physical violence not only against Trump supporters but anyone the ANTIFA terrorists can try and get away with harming, possibly even killing if they could?
What’s worse: a meme video of a scene in an action movie being repurposed for the sake of the meme, or plays, videos and pictures of a murdered President Donald Trump? And in case anyone’s forgotten, Kathy Griffin took a picture of herself holding a paper mache version of Trump’s bloodied and severed head, in a picture that honestly makes you think someone from ISIS could’ve taken.
The meme video might be in poor taste, all things considered, but regardless of what one can say about it, it’s nowhere near as bad as the things THE LEFT CONSTANTLY DOES. And for the fake news media to feign outrage over this, or to have actual outrage over this, all-the-while ignoring what ANTIFA is doing to Trump supporters, ignoring what Leftist voters are doing to Trump supporters (how many people have had to leave a restaurant or other public place because of their support for Trump?), or even ENDORSING these things is outright disgusting.
Do you want to know why I never had a problem with Trump calling the media the “enemy of the people”? Because he was exactly right and every day proves it even more.
It’s not just the fake news stories that serve to misinform people (the Russian collusion story, despite having no weight to it, is still believed by most people who still watch their crap), but it’s their very actions and words too.
Donny Deutsch calling Trump and his supporters “Hitler” and “Nazis” may be nothing new, but it’s still outrageous because of the sort of danger it puts us in. The idea of “punching Nazis in the face” is seen as perfectly acceptable because these people actually think we are Nazis when they are the ones far closer to that sort of ideology than we are.
Let’s not forget that the Virginia baseball shooter only did what he did in trying to kill as many Republicans as he could because Bernie Sanders had him convinced Republicans were going to kill him and many others by “taking away their healthcare”.
Let’s not forget that the ICE fire bomber only did what he did because of AOC’s stance against ICE.
I’m not going to directly blame these politicians for the actions of their supporters, but they can’t claim that Trump uses inflammatory and dangerous language while calling him Hitler and us Nazis in the same sentence. They can’t say that Trump is hateful when they openly demonize law enforcement agencies who are only doing what they are SUPPOSED TO DO.
For the New York Times, CNN and other news outlets to cry “victim” over the MEME VIDEO THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN is, itself, the actual outrage, considering their track record.
How is a Donald Trump rendition of “Julius Caesar”, where Trump is brutally assassinated, considered “art” and “entertainment” and a silly video of a movie scene with Trump and his political opponents superimposed onto the actual characters of the movie is considered as “depicting violence” against the media?
I’ll tell you how: these people are utterly narcissistic.
Remember when the media lambasted a rodeo because someone had a Barack Obama mask that kind of mocked him even though they had also mocked George W. Bush?
Compare and contrast the two presidents then: Obama? Can’t even make fun of him. Trump? Can show him brutally assassinated and it’s considered “art” and it’s sacred.
The Left is full of hypocritical narcissists who wouldn’t know a joke if they had a debate stage full of them.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you’ve been reading my articles for a while, you will know that I am a big basketball fan. My favorite NBA team is the Miami Heat, followed by the Portland Trail Blazers as I have lived in both cities in the past. Though I do not often talk about it because the basketball world and the world of politics do not intercept very often, when they do, I feel the need to speak at least to some extent.
Some time ago, for example, I discussed what Golden State Warriors Forward Draymond Green said regarding racism in America and pointed out that we are in a far better state racially than before if people have to make up racial attacks.
But recently, another political moment can be found in the NBA when Houston Rockets’ General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted out his support for the pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. He simply tweeted a graphic that said: “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.”
As a result, many Chinese businesses, including the Chinese Basketball Association, and the Chinese government “quickly denounced Morey and moved to sever ties with the Rockets,” according to The Ringer.
It should be noted that this is particularly important because the Rockets have a lot of fans in China given that one of the team’s best players in franchise history was Yao Ming, a former Chinese basketball player and the first Chinese player taken with the first overall pick in the NBA draft. It’s perhaps because of this that Morey had to backpedal so quickly regarding his comments, but I doubt it would’ve made much of a difference had any other NBA executive done the same.
The Chinese government is utterly dictatorial and threatened to boycott the Rockets in China, which would mean damage to the team’s and the NBA’s bottom line. The tweet, which has since been deleted, reportedly prompted Rockets ownership to debate whether or not to fire Morey as a result.
NBA chief communications officer Mike Bass issued the following official NBA statement: “We recognize that the views expressed by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China, which is regrettable. While Daryl has made it clear that his tweet does not represent the Rockets or the NBA, the values of the league support individuals’ educating themselves and sharing their views on matters important to them. We have great respect for the history and culture of China and hope that sports and the NBA can be used as a unifying force to bridge cultural divides and bring people together.”
What a load of crap. The NBA only cares about people’s political beliefs when it aligns with their own. They have no problem with Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, Warriors coach Steve Kerr or Lakers franchise player LeBron James lambasting and attacking President Trump, but the minute an NBA executive shares PRO-DEMOCRACY beliefs aimed at the situation in Hong Kong, that becomes a problem and his job is put into jeopardy.
The NBA does not have any values at all. They consider themselves a bastion of morality when they pull the All-Star game out of Charlotte because of the transgender bathroom law (and no, that wasn’t moral either) but utterly cower to the whims of a dictatorial regime that has killed tens of millions of people due to Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward” and that currently imprisons millions of people for being Christians or Muslims.
These are not values. This is whoring yourself out for Chinese money. It’s utter hypocrisy and the NBA deserves every bit of the criticism it’s receiving State-side.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) tweeted: “So let me get this straight. Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey expresses support for Hong Kong democracy movement & Chinese government pressures NBA to fire him? Moment of truth for NBA. Will they bow to pressure from repressive, authoritarian govt?”
He followed that up by tweeting: “Chinese govt has a million people locked in concentration camps & is trying to brutally repress Hong Kong demonstrators – and NBA wants to ‘bridge cultural divides’? Cultural divides?”
He wasn’t alone in his criticism of the NBA. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted: “As a lifelong Houston Rockets fan, I was proud to see Daryl Morey call out the Chinese Communist Party’s repressive treatment of protestors in Hong Kong. Now, in pursuit of big $$, the NBA is shamefully retreating.”
He added: “We’re better than this; human rights shouldn’t be for sale & the NBA shouldn’t be assisting Chinese communist censorship.”
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) piled on, tweeting: “It’s clear that the NBA is more interested in money than human rights. Tonight’s statement from Commissioner Silver is an absolute joke. The NBA is kowtowing to Beijing to protect their bottom line and disavowing those with the temerity to stand with Hong Kong. Shameful!”
Federalist co-founder Ben Domenech also tweeted: “I hope a player, just one, is brave enough to speak out against this corporate [b.s.] bending of the knee.”
Considering the NBA fines players for even slightly criticizing bad referee calls, I doubt they would allow for players to speak out against the Chinese communists without getting a fine, so I don’t see any player speaking out against this crap.
But the NBA isn’t just getting criticism from the Right or from conservative news media. Sports analyst Clay Travis tweeted: “ESPN is set to broadcast from China this week. The woke league with the woke broadcasting network. All shilling for Chinese communists. Y’all think they’ll say anything at all? Ha ha. The hypocrisy is crazy. When the NBA pulled out of Charlotte, ESPN praised them to high heavens.”
TIME columnist Ian Bremmer also tweeted: “I get the NBA not wanting to side with Hong Kong because it’s politically uncomfortable. But apologizing to the Chinese dictatorship against the democracy they’re repressing? As an American sports league? That’s unconscionable.”
Vox’s Aaron Rupar, a far-Left columnist, also piled on, tweeting: “This is a hostage video. What an embarrassment for the NBA.” He was referring to Daryl Morey having to tweet out a two-tweet apology for his stance.
Even Barack Obama’s old speechwriter Ben Rhodes tweeted: “Just consider that the NBA is suggesting that supporting democracy and human rights ‘does not represent’ the NBA or the values that the league supports. What values does the league support?”
It’s a huge deal when I read a Ben Rhodes tweet and don’t feel like throwing up. I honestly have nothing to argue with here, because I wholeheartedly agree with Rhodes. In doing this, the NBA is suggesting that the support of democracy and human rights is not something the NBA wants to attach itself to simply due to the bottom line.
It’s utter corporate shilling at some of its worst. I have no doubt in my mind that the NBA would’ve found no trouble working with Nazi Germany if it meant turning a profit there. China is doing much of the same thing, sending people to concentration camps, many of whom likely die there, and utterly represses its people to the point where expressing any non-state approved thought is bounds for some sort of punishment.
The NBA has no values, only pretends to have them when it will give them good PR and some sort of profit. Standing against the banning of men inside women’s restrooms is perfectly okay in their eyes. Standing in favor of democracy and human rights is troublesome when in the context of China denying said democracy and human rights.
It’s utterly despicable, and while I understand the NBA is a business and it will always try to do what’s best for business, that doesn’t excuse this. Any money the NBA receives from China ought to be considered dirty, perhaps even bloody, money, given what the authoritarian government does to its people.
Interestingly, though, this puts the NBA in the precise position it didn’t want to find itself in: jeopardizing profits.
If even Aaron Rupar and Ben Rhodes, some of the farthest-Left people on Twitter, are siding against the NBA, what exactly does that mean for the NBA in the States? Could be that some people, particularly Rockets fans, choose to boycott the NBA themselves as a result. And if so, depending on how long it lasts and how big that boycott is, it could lead the NBA to lose more money than they would’ve otherwise.
The NBA hosts a few pre-season games in China with a number of teams, not even all of them. But while the pre-season nets them a good amount of money outside the U.S., the NBA only has 2 pre-season games scheduled in China out of a total 79 games in the pre-season schedule. And the regular season has 82 games per each team (totaling 2460 total games played in the regular season for all teams combined), all of which are played in the United States (except for the Toronto Raptors, who play 41 games in Toronto, Canada).
If a boycott of the NBA were to happen in the States, that would matter a whole lot more for the NBA’s bottom line than a Chinese boycott of the NBA.
But regardless of what happens, whether any boycott of the NBA happens whatsoever, it’s pretty clear that the NBA is full of utterly spineless cowards, even down to Morey himself. He easily could have kept the tweet supporting the Hong Kong protesters and explaining in a follow-up tweet that he has to make it clear that that is his own view and belief and they don’t necessarily reflect the team or the NBA, but nope. He was forced to apologize and mention that he had to consider “other views” on the matter.
The other view, in case one can’t tell, is support of the murderous, dictatorial regime that clearly has a lot of power on the NBA (it’s not helped by the fact that the Brooklyn Nets’ new owner is Alibaba co-founder Joseph Tsai).
The NBA should be utterly ashamed not only of trying to silence an NBA executive for saying something they disagree with, which is utterly un-American, but also for kowtowing to the Chinese communists out of fear of lost profits.
The NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver are the very corporate cronies their supposed ideology hates.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely. Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
With the Russian collusion narrative all but six feet under, and with every other “scandal” pushed out by the fake news media flopping more than a fish out of water, the Left’s latest “scandal” has ironically focused on Russia’s rival: Ukraine.
Like with the Russian collusion narrative, Trump was alleged to have tried to collude with Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 Presidential elections via the investigation of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, thereby hurting Biden’s own candidacy. It is also being alleged that Trump threatened Ukraine with withholding foreign aid to the country if they didn’t investigate Hunter and the company he worked for.
However, like with everything else these people spew, that was nothing more than fake news.
With the way the media was talking about it, they made it look like investigating Biden was all that was in Trump’s mind and that he was out to influence in the elections. But the facts point in the other direction completely.
You see, President Donald Trump recently released the full, unclassified transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
What we find in the transcript of the phone call are a couple of things:
First, Trump congratulating Zelensky on his party’s success in a recent Parliamentary election in which they gained quite a bit of power. They talked quite a bit about what they hope to do in the future as far as U.S.-Ukraine relations go, with Zelensky crediting Trump as being an inspiration for Zelensky’s own election victory back in May of this year. Zelensky mentioned his desire to “drain the swamp” present in Ukrainian politics, and the two discussed the relationship Ukraine has with the European Union, which doesn’t seem to be a particularly good one.
The transcript is five pages long and Trump doesn’t begin discussing other matters until the third page.
In that page, he mentions the cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which is connected to the DOJ’s investigation into election interference.
President Trump said the following during the call: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
So what is being said here? Trump is asking Ukraine to look into the whole ordeal surrounding Crowdstrike, which is under investigation by the DOJ as part of Barr's investigation into the origination of the Russian collusion hoax.
As far as Biden goes, to give you some context as to why he is being talked about at all, back in 2016, a top Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Burisma Holdings, a company which employed the former VP’s son as a board member, as well as a firm called Rosemont Seneca, which received monthly transfers of upwards of $166,000 from Burisma between 2014 and 2015.
And Joe Biden himself had bragged about withholding $1 billion in U.S. loans to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating Hunter.
Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations that he told then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko: “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
It’s truly ironic because one of the allegations the Left had been making about this call that Trump had with Zelensky was that he had a quid pro quo, or a favor granted in exchange for something in return, and that Trump had threatened to withhold money unless they investigate Biden, but in reality, we find that BIDEN himself had committed this type of quid pro quo threat.
All Trump had asked Zelensky to do is to look into the entire ordeal surrounding Crowdstrike, if at all possible. Within the phone call, Trump wasn’t pressuring Zelensky to look into anything. He didn’t threaten Ukraine with withholding funds if they didn’t do something. It was BIDEN who did that back when he was Vice President (and Obama was likely in on it too).
All that was in the phone call was Trump congratulating Zelensky on more election victories, discussing them meeting up in Poland, the U.S. or Ukraine, discussing the economic potential of Ukraine moving forward as an energy independent nation, and looking into Crowdstrike. It wasn't until later on that Trump mentioned the prosecutor who had been fired: "I just want to let you know that's the other thing... There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me," said the President to Zelensky.
The main thing that Trump seemed to have sought was looking into Crowdstrike, with the Biden stuff appearing to be a complete afterthought.
And, by the way, he didn’t have to threaten Ukraine like Biden did. That’s because Trump isn’t a corrupt crook like Joe Biden is or Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) is. Why Sen. Chris Murphy? Because he did something relatively similar to Joe Biden.
The Hill reports that earlier in September, Sen. Chris Murphy told Zelensky not to cooperate with Rudy Giuliani. To Murphy’s own words: “I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President’s campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them.”
Basically, he gave a thinly-veiled threat to President Zelensky not to investigate Hunter Biden in a rather similar manner as Joe did. He was essentially threatening that relations with the two countries could be jeopardized once a Democrat wins the White House if they investigate Hunter Biden and cooperate with Giuliani.
Again, these two Democrats (and others like them) are extremely corrupt.
If you would like to read the transcript yourself, here is the link: https://www.scribd.com/document/427411245/Trump-Zelensky-trancript#from_embed.
Read it for yourself and see what a nothingburger this “scandal” which was used to launch an impeachment inquiry into the President is. Read it and discover just how utterly desperate the Left is to get rid of Trump. There is nothing in it that even points to criminal activity.
And for this, the Democrats wish to impeach him (not that they need much. His very existence triggers them to wish to impeach him). For this absolute fake news nothingburger.
The Democrats thought this would be what ended Trump. Like with everything else they tried, it utterly blew up in their faces.
Let’s see just how crazier these people can get. I have the feeling we’ve just scratched the surface.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Over the weekend, Hamas terrorists at the Gaza Strip fired around 700 rockets towards Israel, killing four Israelis and wounding dozens others, according to the Jerusalem Post.
“Terror groups Hamas and Islamic jihad in Gaza have fired over 700 rockets at Israel since Friday, killing four Israelis and wounding dozens. Defiant Hamas and Islamic Jihad officials said on Sunday that they don’t rule out the possibility that the current round of fighting in the Gaza Strip could lead to an all-out war with Israel,” reported the Jerusalem Post.
Reuters reported: “The latest round of violence began [Thursday] when an Islamic Jihad sniper fired at Israeli troops, wounding two soldiers.” This is important to keep in mind and you’ll find out why in a moment.
Both Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib responded to this attack, but taking the side of the Islamic terrorists attacking Israel, unsurprisingly.
Tlaib tweeted in response to a tweet (which I will share in a moment) the following: “When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian people who just want to be free? Headlines like this & framing it in this way just feeds into the continued lack of responsibility on Israel who unjustly oppress & target Palestinian children and families. #FreePalestine.”
Now, I have a number of things to say about this alone, but let’s first see what this headline is and what tweet she is responding to. The headline comes from the New York Times, ironically enough, considering their disgusting Anti-Semitic picture from about a week ago, and it reads: “Gaza Militants Fire 250 Rockets, and Israel Responds With Airstrikes.”
Really nothing wrong here, as it states some facts. However, Tlaib and the person she responded to have a problem with this headline and the framing of it, making it seem like it’s the terrorists’ fault… which it is. And yet, they have a problem with this. Why am I not surprised?
But that’s just the headline. What tweet was Tlaib responding to? This one: “This is a stunningly irresponsible and misleading headline. Israel shot dozens of unarmed Palestinian protestors in Gaza on Friday and killed 4 Palestinians, including two protesters, in Gaza before any projectiles were launched.”
This comes from a Twitter verified account (again, not surprised) that goes by the name of Yousef Munayyer. Obviously, a Muslim and one that sides against Israel (as most tend to do).
But that is where that Reuters report becomes important. Israel may have shot “unarmed Palestinian protesters” (doubt they were unarmed and they are not protesters but occupiers of a land that belongs to Israel, but I’ll get to that later), but if they did, it is out of retaliation against a Jihadi sniper shooting and wounding soldiers. Is Israel not allowed to retaliate against attacks? Are they supposed to kowtow to Muslim invaders?
In Tlaib’s, Omar’s and Yousef’s minds: yes, Israel should surrender to them.
Now, before I get to Omar’s tweet, I would like to dismantle Tlaib’s. First, the headline is a rather accurate one and places the blame on those who are to blame: the radical Islamic terrorists. The NYT won’t admit it themselves, neither would they dare say the words “radical Islamic terrorists”, but they at least have some basic understanding of who the aggressor here is and it’s not Israel (and this will likely be one of very few and far between times when I will actually compliment the New York Times). So the headline she is talking about does not dehumanize anyone, does not represent a sort of “lack of responsibility” on the part of Israel and does nothing except report the truth (again, a rarity for the NYT).
And second, notice the actual dual loyalty Tlaib demonstrates to have here. “Our Palestinian people”? Who is “our” in this situation, because it’s definitely not the United States. The U.S. supports Israel, not Muslim invaders. Tlaib is massively hypocritical in accusing Jewish American politicians of having dual loyalties to Israel and then proceeding to call Palestinians “our” people. They are not America’s people. They shouldn’t even be Tlaib’s people, but that is why I say she is the one with dual loyalties here.
Now, let’s look into Omar’s tweet:
“How many more protesters must be shot, rockets must be fired, and little kids must be killed until the endless cycle of violence ends? The status quo of occupation and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unsustainable. Only real justice can bring about security and lasting peace.”
As some people on Twitter point out, this reads much like Hamas propaganda. She accuses Israel of occupying the Gaza Strip when in reality, it belongs to Israel.
Also, what is “real justice” in this scenario? Considering the side she is taking, of attacking Israel and their right to defend themselves against foreign invaders who wish to destroy them completely, I’m assuming “real justice” means the wiping out of Israel off the face of the Earth.
Again, she considers Israel to be occupying the Gaza Strip when it’s radical Muslims who are occupying the area. To her, “justice” is simply vengeance.
But here’s the thing, and I’m repeating myself: IT BELONGS TO ISRAEL! Muslims in the area are the ones making threats (and sometimes act on said threats) of attacking Jerusalem and completely destroying Israel, forcing them to either submit to Islam or be killed. But the Holy Land does NOT belong to Muslims. God did not promise Mohammed that land. He promised Abraham and his descendants that land.
And by descendants, He did not mean Abraham’s illegitimate child Ishmael, whom Muslims consider to be Abraham’s true first-born son and to whom they believe land belongs as his inheritance. According to Muslim exegesis, Sarah asked Abraham to marry Hagar so that they may have a child together, as Sarah was barren. But Abraham never married Hagar and Ishmael was not the son God promised to Abraham. Abraham was impatient with God as he waited decades for the promise to be fulfilled, getting older and older and his hopes diminishing with each passing year. He got impatient, as did Sarah, and they thought God would bring them a son through someone that is not Sarah.
They were mistaken, as years later, they would bear Isaac. Despite the fact that Sarah was barren and despite the fact that she was well beyond the age of child-rearing, God delivered to them the son that He promised them.
Genesis 21:9-13 shows us exactly what was intended out of both Isaac and Ishmael. After Isaac had been born and circumcised, “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing. So she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.’ And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. But God said to Abraham, ‘Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.’”
God considers Isaac to be Abraham’s heir, as we just read from the Scripture. Ishmael still had his place in history and God blessed him with a nation because he was also Abraham’s offspring, but to Isaac belongs the promise of the Lord made to Abraham. To Isaac belongs the inheritance of his father. To the Israelites, who come from the line of Isaac, belongs the Holy Land.
It is Ishmael’s offspring, the radical Muslims in Hamas, etc. who wish to see Israel destroyed and see themselves occupying the Holy Land. But it does not belong to them.
Do you see why I call the Muslims in Gaza “occupiers”? Because that is what they are. That is not to say they are not allowed to live there, but the land does not belong to them, which is what they claim. The land belongs squarely to Israel.
You can try and argue with me all day long about the issue, but ultimately, it is not me with whom you are arguing, but with the very word and promise of the Lord.
And between Omar, Tlaib and other Muslims who claim the land to be theirs and the Lord God Almighty, I’m not a big fan of the Muslims’ chances.
“Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’ So he built there an altar to the Lord, who appeared to him.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you know me, you know I do not tend to insult people. I always argue Leftists’ dumb arguments but never really call those people dumb. I call them out for what they are, but typically without insulting them. And if I insult them, it’s typically a part of a joke, to some extent.
As for Don Lemon, I will not insult him, since that’s beneath me. However, this needs to be made completely clear: he is, without a shadow of a doubt, a disgustingly hypocritical slimeball.
Recently, Don Lemon said some things that will leave anyone to cringe in utter disgust with the man.
First, on a CNN panel on Monday, he argued that he doesn’t see Democrats killing people because of political motivations. That the mail-bomber and the Tree of Life shooter were both right-wingers and that that is to blame for the violence.
When the issue of the shooter who tried to kill Republicans came up, he argued that there is no equivalency there. No comparison. Of course, that being bullcrap, Lemon does not explain why it’s different.
Second, talking with Chris Cuomo, Lemon said “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them… There is no white guy ban.”
In the same sentence, in the same breath, Lemon urges people not to demonize others, all-the-while demonizing white people and Republicans. It’s truly sickening what goes on in this guy’s mind and what comes out of his mouth. So allow me to slowly, but surely dismantle this guy’s arguments and properly call him out for exactly what he is.
Let’s begin with the argument that he doesn’t see Democrats killing people and that the socialist shooter is different from the synagogue shooter and mail-bomber.
First of all, even this hypocrite can’t tell me the socialist shooter wasn’t trying to kill people. The socialist shooter didn’t bring his AR-15 to the baseball field and start shooting Republicans because he wanted to have a civil conversation about healthcare. He went there because Bernie Sanders said prior to the shooting that Republicans were going to kill millions of people by getting rid of healthcare or changing it in the least.
The socialist shooter was reportedly shouting “this is for healthcare!” while he was shooting. Miraculously, that nut-job didn’t kill anyone. But he definitely tried to, given he was FIRING AT OTHER PEOPLE!
Second of all, the mail-bomber already had a history of violence, and even sending bombs in the mail in the past. Not to mention that the bombs were inoperable. They didn’t blow up and were not designed to. If Lemon can’t see Democrats killing people because the socialist shooter didn’t actually kill anyone, then by that logic, we can’t see the mail bomber killing anyone because he didn’t. Lemon’s argument here is largely based on the fortunate technicality that the socialist shooter didn’t manage to kill anyone. But let’s not forget that he was definitely trying to and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital.
Third of all, the Tree of Life shooter was not a right-winger. He was an ardent anti-Trumper who hated the fact that Trump was so pro-Jew and pro-Israel. That line of thinking falls more in line with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Al Sharpton, etc., who are all Leftists.
Beyond the socialist shooter, there are countless other stories of Leftists threatening the lives of anyone they disagree with and committing acts of violence. I’ve already written about that sort of thing TWICE, listing the rap sheet from Breitbart about the number of Leftist and media-incited/ignored/acceptable acts of violence against the Right.
I don’ trust that any of them wouldn’t go as far as to kill someone they disagree with should they have the chance to. That’s one of the reasons we have the second amendment and why we carry guns, just in case someone threatens and fully intends to take our lives.
If they are willing to actually terrorize people they disagree with, the next step is to actually kill them. The only political groups that have shown this tendency and attitude are Leftist political groups like Black Lives Matter, some of whom HAVE gone as far as to kill cops, and Antifa, who are one successful killing away from being labeled a terrorist organization the likes of ISIS, Hamas, etc.
Finally, let’s not forget that a Democrat HAS ACTUALLY KILLED a Republican in the past. Need I remind you that John Wilkes Booth successfully assassinated Republican President Abraham Lincoln? Booth was from the Democrat South, which hated that Lincoln was fighting them over their supposed “right” to own a human being.
So if Lemon can’t see a Democrat killing anyone for political reasons, he is completely ignorant of history. Not something that surprises me, but something that must be pointed out here.
Now, let’s move on to the racially-charged comment that honestly makes me, a Latino man, sick to my stomach.
The hypocrisy of that comment leaves me in utter shock. Not because I didn’t expect it – I certainly did - but because within the same breath, he calls on people to stop demonizing others and proceeds to demonize others.
What he means by that statement is that Trump and Republicans need to stop demonizing the media and the Left and just take that same demonization themselves. The media definitely doesn’t need to stop demonizing Republicans. Democrats definitely don’t need to stop demonizing Republicans. The Left doesn’t need to tone down on the inflammatory rhetoric, but Trump and Republicans do. Matter of fact, slimeballs like Lemon will flat out deny that their rhetoric is in any way inflammatory.
I don’t really know what else to say. Lemon’s comment speaks for itself. Aside from being hugely hypocritical, it is disgustingly racist. Saying that white people are a terror threat? How is this guy allowed on television? Trying to bring up the supposed “Muslim” ban (which doesn’t ban Muslims, just people from a list of Islamic-terror-related countries, and they know that, but they don’t care) and suggesting that maybe there should be a “white guy” ban?
Do you see now why I call him a hypocritical slimeball? His rhetoric is more inflammatory than he could claim Trump’s is, his arguments are illogical and flat out racist, and he, as well as the entirety of CNN, all believe what he is saying is acceptable and even right and correct.
And this comes in the same week that Far-Left writer Julia Ioffe said, on CNN, that Trump has “radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.”
She later “apologized” by saying she was “exaggerating”. But that, of course, leads us to believe she fully believes Trump has and is radicalizing people much in the same way ISIS does.
These two are not the only ones at CNN (or the broader Fake News media, for that matter) who have claimed Trump is to blame for the actions of the mail-bomber and synagogue shooter and is to blame for the current political climate.
But in doing all of this, apart from dodging the truth about those two nut-jobs (mail-bomber having a criminal history and the shooter being anti-Trump), they use the same inflammatory rhetoric they claim Trump is using, but even more so.
These people are unapologetic about their rhetoric. If they were, they wouldn’t be using it. For all their claims that Trump is dividing the nation, in reality, it is them who are doing that.
Trump, after the Tree of Life shooting, decided to go to Pittsburgh. The Left’s response? Attacking him, saying he shouldn’t be there. Trump, after the mail-bombing suspect was caught, gave a strong speech condemning his actions. The Left’s response? Trump is not being sincere.
While Trump’s use of “enemy of the people” to describe the FAKE news media (I capitalize the word fake because people tend to omit that part) might be inflammatory, it is nonetheless true. The fake news media constantly lies about everything, but that is the least of their sins that label them as the “enemy of the people”. Apart from straight up lying to people, they constantly label those they disagree with as racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. They label others as Nazis and fascists. They call Trump Hitler and a WaPo article even said he’s worse than Hitler.
In this labeling, they label everyone who supports Trump as a Nazi. Everyone who even slightly disagrees with them on anything as a Nazi. And Lemon, right here, is labeling those he disagrees with (and white people in general) as terror threats.
These people are filled to the brim with hatred. They hate Trump for everything he does and manages to do. They hate us for having ever defied their narcissistic behinds and choosing to support him. And in this hatred, they excuse actual threats and acts of violence against conservatives and right-wingers, all-the-while insisting it is us who are the real threat to democracy, to America, to people.
As human beings, I don’t consider the fake news media to be my enemy. As a Christian, I don’t do that. But as a political commentator, someone who wants what is best for the country, I consider them the enemy of the state.
Everything they want works towards the systemic dismantling of America as founded. That’s what the 8 years of Obama were all about. That’s what Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and every other Democrat is about. The fundamental destruction of the United States and the fundamental change towards a socialist nation in the likes of China, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, etc.
What they want is dangerous, and what they spew is dangerous. No, I would never harm any of them and anyone who wishes harm upon them, I disavow and no longer consider them conservatives because a true conservative would never want or do that.
But it truly must be understood that these people don’t care for America. THAT is what makes them the enemy of the people.
As for Lemon himself, I have nothing else to say. He’s a disgusting, hypocritical slimeball. I only have respect for him in that I respect his life and his right to his own opinion. Apart from that, he does not get nor deserve any sort of respect from anyone, let alone me.
I think he is someone in dire need of Christ. Looking into his eyes, I see someone who is dead inside. A typical trait for those who do not have faith in the Lord, and particularly for those on the Left. I sincerely hope he finds Christ. That is the best I can wish for him.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. Unlike the fake news media, I won’t lie to you about something being free. When I say this newsletter is free, that is the truth. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Recently, CampusReform’s Cabot Phillips went to the University of Georgia, offering students $100 if they could answer this simple question: “Can you offer an example of a liberal speaker being shouted down by conservative students?”
Of course, this is coming from the fact that there have been multiple cases of college speakers getting shouted down and events being cancelled. And it really should come as no surprise to anyone that every speaker that was shouted down was either conservative (Ben Shapiro and others) or simply said things that the Leftist students disagreed with.
So for $100, Cabot challenged a number of students to see if any of them could think of even one example of conservative students shouting down a liberal event in any way. As you could imagine, not one student was $100 richer that day.
No student could recall such an event happening either because they were not necessarily paying attention (not that there even is an example even if you were paying attention) or simply because they legitimately could not picture even one time when conservative students shouted down a liberal speaker.
One of the students admitted: “No, I don’t think I can name any. I wish I could, but no…”
I won’t get too much into that particular answer, since seeing the video, I take that to mean “I wish I could tell you so I could get that $100” and not “I wish I could tell you so that I can own conservatives.”
His demeanor was not one of someone who was frustrated at not being able to come up with an example.
Another student said: “I honestly would believe that that hasn’t happened before.” Which is quite an interesting answer, all things considered.
Now, unsurprisingly, pretty much all of them still tried to say that the Left was more tolerant and open-minded. One of them said: “I just think people are a bit more open on the liberal side.” The interesting thing is that Cabot tried to reason with him, saying that, knowing conservatives don’t shut down liberal speakers, wouldn’t it make more sense to consider the conservatives to be more open-minded? The student briefly agreed with Cabot, but ultimately went with: “… I think it’s both sides.”
It really isn’t.
Another student, when faced by the same question of who is more tolerant, said: “I think so. I think if they (conservatives) did it, they’d know there’d be more backlash.”
A very fascinating point he makes. If it were conservatives shouting down liberal speakers, there would absolutely be more backlash. And deservedly so, because conservatives believe in freedom of speech. But then, this raises another question: “why don’t the liberals face the kind of backlash this student believes would go to conservatives if they did the exact same thing?”
Why is it that when liberal students threaten violence or actually perpetrate violence against a speaker they disagree with, they do not receive much if any backlash at all? Of course, we all know the answer to this. Academia and the media are both owned by the Left. The media won’t report on it, and when they do, they usually back the students who threatened violence.
Anyway, back to the students. Some of them still tried to make the case that liberals are more open-minded than conservatives. Emphasis on the word “tried”. The ones that argued in favor of liberals being more open-minded either eventually came to an agreement or concession of their point, like the student I mentioned some paragraphs ago, or they simply had their tongues-tied and could not properly make an argument.
It’s because of those things that I titled this article like I did. The proof is in the pudding.
The overlords at Google define tolerance as: “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
Going by this definition owned by Leftists themselves, we can see that liberal students do not express tolerance towards conservative speakers. They have neither the ability nor the willingness to tolerate opinions that differ from their own.
Much like the Nazi brown shirts or the Fascist black shirts, liberal college students try to suppress and deny other people’s opinions. Beyond not wanting to hear those opinions, they do not want those opinions even uttered.
It is one thing to be a liberal, see that your college is hosting Ben Shapiro, and choosing not to go to the event. It is an entirely different thing to be a liberal, see that your college is hosting Ben Shapiro, and organize a mob to shut down the event altogether and keep Shapiro from speaking at all.
You have the right to not hear someone’s opinion, but you do not have the right to bully and threaten and keep someone from expressing their opinion. Like the student said, if conservatives were to do it to liberals, there would be a lot of backlash, even from the Right, as well there should be. No real conservative would shut down the speech of another person just because they disagree with them.
But those are not the rules the Left lives by. Knowing this, and the fact that they are the only ones who do this to anyone, then one cannot realistically argue that liberals are at least equally as tolerant or even more tolerant than conservatives. That is simply the opposite of reality.
Not one of these students got $100 because not one of these students could come up with an example of conservatives shutting down liberal events. That’s because that sort of thing does not happen. We may attend liberal events and challenge the ideas of the speakers, much like some liberals attend conservative events and challenge the speaker, but we never adamantly keep someone from expressing their beliefs, as erroneous and messed up as they might be.
This is all because conservatives are truly tolerant, while the Left is not. Now, one thing needs to be clarified: it is okay to be intolerant sometimes. Definitely not when your desire is to shut down someone else’s opinion and keep them from uttering it. But definitely when someone is doing something wrong.
What do I mean by this? Well, this all comes down to right and wrong. For example, we should not be tolerant of terrorism. While sissy countries like the U.K. and France seemingly tolerate terrorism (see London Mayor Sadiq Khan saying it’s part and parcel of living in a big city), no one should really tolerate such a despicable act. No country should lay down and accept that as part of life. No one should tolerate radical Islamic extremists killing people in the name of Allah or Sharia Law or sex with goats or whatever.
At that point, tolerating terrorism is not tolerance, it’s surrender. And doing this is extremely dangerous in multiple levels.
So it’s okay to not be tolerant of everything. If we had to tolerate everything, then we would have had to tolerate Nazism. It’s good to tolerate things, so long as those things are not adamantly evil and a horrible thing in this world.
Regardless, I hope this experience leaves some of those kids with something to think about. If they are logical, they should come to the conclusion that liberals are really the ones who don’t tolerate things and that conservatives are the ones who tolerate others.
2 Peter 3:18
“But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles delivered straight into your inbox. And as the name suggests, it comes completely free of charge. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you asked me to remember how many articles I’ve written attacking the Left’s lack of logic, I would not be able to do it, since almost every single article that discusses the Left either discusses how illogical they are, how evil they are, or both.
And in recent time, I have read two separate articles (both from the Daily Wire) highlighting the Left’s illogical nature. Granted, the Daily Wire often does this, but these two articles are more subtle about it.
One of them is titled: “’Cosmo’ Covergirl Is ‘Morbidly Obese’ Body Acceptance Model’” and the other one is titled: “SJWs Lose It After Peter Dinklage Cast As ‘Filipino’. There’s Just One Problem.”
Very briefly, I will try to go through each article.
In the first one, Cosmo magazine features Tess Holliday, a plus-sized model and activist. Everyone from Cosmo to Holliday herself, to even the Huffington Post celebrate her being on the cover of the magazine, with the HuffPo saying: “Tess Holliday is everything the fashion industry needs. She doesn’t conform to the (metaphorically and literally) narrow standard of beauty that’s been set by society, she’s a role model for others who have felt excluded in this way, and she’s downright honest.”
What kind of role model insists that it’s OK to be "morbidly obese", the most severe rank of obesity according to the CDC? What kind of model insists such a thing is beautiful when it's not even healthy?
Of course, Leftists have already come up with an “argument” against that. Self magazine Editor-in-Chief Carolyn Kylstra said: “You don’t know how healthy or unhealthy a person is just by looking at them, you don’t know what their health goals and priorities are, and you don’t know what they’ve already done or are planning to do for their health going forward.”
This is some of the stupidest garbage I have ever read. And trust me, I’ve read a lot of stupid garbage. In essence, the Left, with their relativistic world-view that everything is relative, is trying to say that you can get to decide whether you're healthy or not. Health is now relative too.
First of all, you can absolutely tell how healthy or unhealthy someone is based entirely on looks. For example, someone who is as obese as Tess Holliday is very unhealthy. Someone who is undergoing chemotherapy is fairly unhealthy. Someone who is as skinny as Freddy Mercury was by the end of his life is not healthy. Someone who is even skinnier due to malnutrition is not healthy.
So don’t give me crap like that. You can absolutely tell how healthy someone is by a simple look, particularly if they are extreme cases such as Tess Holliday.
Second of all, a simple look might not tell you about their health goals or priorities – that much is true. But in the case of Tess Holliday, I absolutely can tell her goals and priorities. She’s a plus-sized model, activist and, according to multiple people, a role model. She’s all these things precisely because of her obesity, which carries with it some unhealthiness by definition. She’s this famous and rich because of her obesity. If she were to slim-down, not only would she likely lose all of these things, but she would even feel as though she’s betraying her own values and fans.
As stupid as it is to sacrifice health for wealth and fame and adoration, this is what I see her future as. She’s not going to get healthier, unfortunately. She likely has no plans for it, if she has attained this despite her unhealthiness.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, she’s doing just as much damage to teenage girls as those ultra-skinny models in other magazines. If the argument against featuring super skinny models is that girls will want to imitate that, then the same argument can be made against super fat models.
If Tess Holliday can be famous by being super fat, then what is stopping other girls from doing the same?
Girls have been willing to force themselves to be skinny by purging (the act of forcing oneself to vomit to lose weight) because that is the standard those super skinny models set for beauty. If Tess does the same but for obesity, girls will start to eat unhealthy amounts of food and get as fat as Tess.
How is that being a good role model?
It’s backwards logic.
And that’s just the first article. The second article covers “Game of Thrones” actor Peter Dinklage supposedly “whitewashing” a Filipino man for an upcoming HBO movie titled “My Dinner with Herve”. The movie centers around a man named Herve Villechaize, who was a TV actor who starred in the ‘70s show “Fantasy Island”.
The only problem here is that Herve is not actually Filipino. The Wikipedia page about him says he’s Filipino, but he’s actually French and was of German and English descent, according to the Daily Wire. Herve just LOOKED Filipino and Wikipedia took it to mean that he actually was.
And we all know how reliable Wikipedia is. Even Dinklage called it out, saying that there was a Wikipedia page about his daughter claiming her name is “Zelig” but his daughter’s name isn’t actually Zelig.
Now, you might be thinking “what’s the backwards logic here?” The fact that SJWs attack Dinklage for whitewashing a character who was not actually a minority. Yes, that’s irony, but it’s also backwards logic that revolves around playing identity politics.
Identity politics is really just “acceptable racism”. It’s where white people are told to shut up about everything because they somehow have led minorities to suffer. My friends, I’m afraid that’s Democrats who cause suffering. Not white people.
And the fact that SJWs attacked Dinklage for supposedly “whitewashing” a person who is white but looks ethnic is backwards logic, as well as deliciously ironic.
The backwards logic and the irony come in the fact that the SJWs are calling other people racist while they themselves have proven to be racist by assuming someone’s race based entirely on their looks (which is the primary way to know someone’s race but it’s somehow become a horrendous sin to do).
Being fat to the point you’re morbidly obese is, in the Left’s mind, completely acceptable and not something you should feel bad about to the point you want to do something about it. And attacking someone else for doing nothing wrong even if you think they’re doing something wrong is morally justifiable and acceptable.
Granted, the Dinklage example might be a tad extreme for this circumstance, since the people that accused him of being racist probably have egg on their faces right now but I digress.
Both of these things contain within them the underlying message that wrong is right and right is wrong. Now, I’m not saying it’s wrong to be fat. But when you’re so fat you take up two seats on a plane, that’s a problem. When you’re so fat you are considered to be at the most extreme rank of obesity according to the CDC, that’s a problem. And when you have no intention to get any slimmer and get any healthier, that’s a problem.
When you attack someone who isn’t doing anything wrong but is doing something wrong in your eyes, that’s a problem. Because even if Herve actually were Filipino, that shouldn’t be a problem whatsoever anyway. Peter Dinklage should still be able to play a Filipino man.
Racism has no place in entertainment, one way or the other. If Dinklage wanted to play a Filipino man, no one should try to stop him based on arguments of racism.
The Left’s backwards logic is the precise meaning for the Isaiah 5:20 verse saying: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
The Left are the ones who are saying Trump is a fascist when they were supporting someone who more accurately portrays a fascist: Barack Obama. The Left are the ones who say it’s okay to believe you are a different gender. (And don’t even get me started on sexual orientation. At this point, it must be hard for gay men because we can now realistically ask “when you say you are attracted to other men, do you mean men who are men, women who are men or men who are women?” I would honestly feel bad if I were gay and were asked such a question. Heck, I would feel bad about asking such a question in the first place because we know it’s now not strictly a joke).
Regardless, it all speaks to the Left’s backwards logic. They call evil good and good evil (Obama and Trump, Allah and Jesus, Socialism and Capitalism, etc.). They insist that they are not racist and claim others are racist when they are historically and actually the most racist people out there, whether they mean to or not. And they encourage people to believe they are the opposite gender from what they biologically are and encourage people that it’s okay to live unhealthy lives just to be a “nonconformist” in a society that is not entirely bananas.
This isn’t just backwards logic, it’s willful evil as well. They know the damage they are causing to people’s minds and souls. They are happy with it because as long as people are illogical and not thinking for themselves, they will vote the way the Left wants them to vote.
It should speak volumes to everyone who reads this that the Left requires people to be basically absent-minded for them to garner even a single vote.
Now, I’m not calling liberals stupid. There are plenty of Democrat voters and liberals who are smart. And precisely because they are smart, they will eventually switch sides. Just as you can’t be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time forever, you can’t be intelligent and a Democrat forever (unless you run for office).
My point is not to call Democrat voters stupid, but to show the Left REQUIRES people not to think independently and intelligently in order to succeed at any level in the government. Feeding false information is the primary way they do this.
“They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”
And please, if you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe to our weekly newsletter. All you have to do is enter your e-mail address in the box on the right and click the “Subscribe to our free newsletter” box. You read that right, it’s 100% free. Unlike free healthcare, free college and free unicorn poop, you don’t actually have to pay for anything anywhere with this newsletter. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles for easy access to them, as well as easier access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There is one particular characteristic about the Left that they would rather no one ever mention or call out that puts them in a worse light than they already are. Beyond actively trying to discredit the legitimacy of an election and trying to impeach a sitting U.S. President on the grounds that they simply don’t like him, the Left also has one characteristic that is patently obvious to those who look even a little: hypocrisy.
In an interview with the UK’s Metro magazine, former Hollywood actor and A-lister Rupert Everett, who’s most famous for his role in the late-90s romantic comedy “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, or, if you are young like me, Prince Charming from Shrek 2, Everett called out Hollywood’s hypocrisy regarding LGBT people.
“There’s tons of roles that I haven’t got for lots of different reasons, some of them probably for not being a good enough actor or doing a lousy audition – all that counts. But there were three or four big films, when I was successful, that the director and the other actors wanted me to be in and that I was absolutely blocked from by a studio, just for the fact of being gay.”
Now, I simply must point something out here. Everett does not exactly provide evidence to support that claim. Anyone can claim they didn’t get something, be it a role in a movie or a job, for the simple fact of being gay. Anyone can make that sort of claim. However, what he says here is relatively specific. It’s not simply that he didn’t get the part because he was gay - it’s that, while some people working on the films wanted him, the studio specifically were the ones to deny him that, for whatever reason. BLOCK, as he mentions.
Not to mention that whenever people claim they didn’t get something because of their race or religion or gender or sexuality, they tend to sound as though they are ranting. I understand that this is on print and not a video or audio of the interview, but even the printed word can showcase the tone of some people. I’m certain you can see the tone and pace of a heated attack or calling out of a Leftist argument when you read these articles. Reading what Everett said there, it didn’t sound as though he was ranting. It sounded as though he was revealing something that is relatively common place for him.
Everett continues: “That does absolutely happen. But at the same time, it has been the making of me as well. It has forced me always to try and be creative, to try and make something up. I think my career as a writer would not have happened if I had been heterosexual, active, working non-stop.”
While he does count his blessings, in a way, as having the time to be a writer, he does casually point out the fact that, if he were straight, studios would keep him busy with major roles in movies. That, because of his homosexuality, Hollywood studios have denied him some roles and unwittingly given him the time to do something else with his time to further his career.
But then, Everett lays on Hollywood quite strongly: “My position of working in this aggressively heterosexual milieu of showbusiness has definitely made me feel kind of parallel [to Oscar Wilde, the character he portrays in his new movie ‘The Happy Prince’.] Of course I haven’t been put in prison and subjected to hard labour and I haven’t died from it, but I have been constantly on the back foot, really, in my career as a gay actor…”
And that first part really should be a huge attack on Hollywood. To the Left, there is nothing worse than a straight, white male who is ok with being straight, white and male. To refer to them as an “aggressively heterosexual milieu (environment) of showbusiness” is a slap in the face to them. They live in a world of progressivism. To appear as anything less is a crime, in their eyes.
The funny thing is that, they are honestly not progressive.
What I mean by that is that, while they may say progressive things and issue progressive messages (such as “f*** Trump”, apparently), they live a life of hypocrisy. They may SOUND progressive but they AREN’T progressive.
Let’s take Leonardo DiCaprio, for example. He is a massive supporter of “green energy” and other nonsense that is meant to “fight climate change”. Meanwhile, he is a massive contributor to the very “cause” of climate change.
According to a Daily Mail article from 2017, “It can be estimated that DiCaprio has potentially emitted up to 418.4 tons of CO2 this year because of his globe-trotting. The average American emits 19 tons a year.”
DiCaprio’s gas emissions are 22 times WORSE than the average American, and yet, calls for you, the average American, to be more concerned with the environment and to take better care of it. That figure only talks about his CO2 emission due to his travels. I wonder how much he pollutes with his at least 7 different homes, according to Realtor.com.
If he were really a “progressive”, he would not be so willing to have such a massive carbon footprint on the world. Does he not know the damage he’s causing to the environment? What kind of friend is he to Mother Nature if he is abusing her like this, while turning around and DEMANDING all of us to be more environmentally-cautious?
Moving on from DiCaprio’s faux progressive lifestyle, let’s visit a very hot topic from late last year: sexual assault, abuse, harassment, etc.
Of course, I’m certain you know who I want to focus on. Pervy Harvey Weinstein, of course. How many times has he called for progressive and feminist ideals? How many times has he met with top feminist icons such as Meryl Streep and Hillary Clinton? How many times was he seen as a pro-woman Hollywood mogul? Well, maybe he was a little bit too pro-woman.
If Weinstein really believed in everything he and his friends were talking about to the cameras - about women being given better wages, women being given the “right” to choose - then he wouldn’t have forced some of them to have a better wage by sleeping with him. He wouldn’t have taken away a woman’s right to choose whether or not she had sexual contact with him.
Now, let’s move on to the “issue” of having a border wall (which perplexes me as to how defending and securing our national border can even be considered an issue of debate) and the refugee crisis.
The UK Daily Mail absolutely shreds both the Clooneys and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.
According to their article, the two celebrity couples have 8 houses combined (Clooneys 5, Brangelina 3). All of which secure and none of which help these “poor Syrian refugees looking for a new home”.
You see, to these people, YOU should be the one taking care of the refugees. YOU should be the one willingly giving up your home to military-aged members of the cult of Islam. YOU should be the one to happily live with immigrants. Never mind the fact that the Clooneys moved out of their home in Italy precisely because of the influx of immigrants. They are still the jewels of society and you should worship the ground they walk on because they are always right.
Give me a break.
So, when I read that Everett interview calling out the hypocrisy of Hollywood regarding gay people, I was about as shocked as when I saw the Golden State Warriors win another championship. It’s very much expected because that is just who they are.
They say one thing, but you should never expect them to live by such words. To hold them accountable means to be a hater and you ought to be silenced for calling out such wonderful gods. That is the Left’s mentality, anyway.
Their MO is “do as I say, not as I do.” How anyone can respect and admire such blatant hypocrisy is beyond me.
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...