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.
One of the bigger news pieces over this past week has been the racially-charged tweet sent out by Roseanne directed at former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
In a response to a story about WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange exposing Obama’s CIA for having “spied on French presidential candidates”, Roseanne tweeted: “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj.”
This caused a massive stir, with ABC eventually cancelling the reboot to her show.
Eventually, Roseanne apologized for the tweet multiple times, but wound up deleting those tweets as well, for some reason.
Now, due to ABC cancelling the show, many conservatives have taken to defend her and her tweet, which is not advisable. That tweet was wrong and in poor taste. I know the Left constantly does the same, with examples such as comparing Trump to a baboon in more than just his supposed lack of intelligence, ESPN’s Keith Olbermann tweeting out a series of curse words at Trump, calling him a Nazi, and Joy Behar repeatedly attacking Christians.
I know full well how sick and depraved these people are. Which is precisely why I’m not too surprised to see Roseanne Barr tweeting such a racist tweet.
I know that in recent time, she has shown to have a bit more sensibility than other liberals. Personally, I tend to refer to Roseanne as the Yogi Bear of liberals – she’s smarter than the average liberal.
But at the end of the day, that is precisely what she is: a liberal.
Throughout the first iteration of her show, she would constantly promote abortion, gay marriage and everything liberals promote. That didn’t change in the reboot, with the family showcasing a crossdressing boy as part of their family.
The only reason I say Roseanne is smarter than the average liberal is because she supports Trump. But that isn’t a license to say something as terrible as comparing Valerie Jarrett (don’t misunderstand, I don’t like her either) to a monkey, or something to that extent.
She supports Trump, and that’s great! She understands a good deal more about America than many other Hollywood liberals. But she isn’t a conservative.
She once ran for President as a socialist, she has wished ill of Christians who eat at Chic-Fil-A, willingly butchered the National Anthem prior to a baseball game and asked Jimmy Kimmel if he wanted “Pence for the friggin’ president”, as to say that she wouldn’t want him to be POTUS any more than the crying "comedian".
She excuses her National Anthem performance as saying she “was trying to be respectful”, claims her tweet about Christians and Chic-Fil-A was meant to raise awareness about the health risks of eating fast food and now, with this latest scandal, blames her Ambien prescription for her words.
She fits the profile of any other limousine liberal out there, aside from her support of Trump. But, for some reason, it’s that support for the President that has conservatives backing her up and supporting her.
Don’t get me wrong, I find it interesting and endearing that Roseanne Barr, of all people, would support Trump. But that isn’t an excuse for her behavior, and it never should be.
ABC was right to fire her, since they are her employer and free speech can be limited by your employer. If you were to say something that egregious and your employer found out, you shouldn’t be surprised if consequences ensue.
And yes, we can mention the NFL in all this, and call out the Left’s hypocrisy over celebrating Roseanne’s firing while decrying outrage over the NFL’s Anthem policy being restrictive of the First Amendment. But my take is that, in both cases, the employer was in the right. They have the power to do those things.
The First Amendment of the United States protects us from being prosecuted by the government. It protects our ability to speak freely without fearing incarceration. But the First Amendment does not protect an employee from their employer. Many times, the NFL banned players choosing to express their thoughts. They have banned a player from wearing pink cleats in honor of his deceased mother because it wasn’t Breast Cancer Awareness month. They banned a player from wearing cleats that honored the victims of 9/11.
They may be jerk moves, but they have the right to do that. Likewise, they have the right to ban kneeling during the Anthem (which, by the way, the NBA has even stricter rules regarding that). Similarly, ABC has the right to cancel and fire Roseanne for that disgusting tweet.
Now, in her apologies, I do believe she was being sincere. I’m not flat-out saying we should throw her under the bus and character assassinate her. That’s a job for the Left to try to do, even if it’s to one of their own. But her behavior can’t simply be excused because of her support for Trump.
Now, I know what you may be thinking: “this guy is abandoning his core values! He doesn’t believe in freedom of speech!” Relax, I’m not abandoning anything. I’m certainly not turning against my Christian conservative beliefs. I’m simply pointing out that Roseanne tweeted something bad and her employer has the right to deliver a consequence they see fit.
Don’t get me wrong, ABC is still a pile of garbage, and all of the Left has tweeted and said far worse things about Trump and conservatives than what Roseanne said. But, like I said, the First Amendment doesn’t protect anyone from their employer.
She still has the right to have said what she said, and people have the right to either attack or defend her. I won’t necessarily attack her myself, but the point needs to be made clear: Roseanne is still a clear-cut liberal. She’s been learning in recent time, as evidenced by her support for Trump, but she still holds many Leftist ideologies, which were clear in even the reboot of her show.
Like I said earlier, I believe her apologies were sincere. She made a mistake and apologized for it, even if she was also blaming prescription drugs for it. So I do think she deserves another shot with her show, but she needs to have learned this lesson here and now.
What’s the lesson? A couple of things, really. First, the First Amendment protects you from government action, not employer action. Second, her liberal values are partly responsible for her words, since racism and hatred are rooted in the Left. Third, the Left’s double-standard is crystal clear. You can only say egregious things about conservatives, not liberals.
They celebrate Michelle Wolf for her disgusting “jokes” about Sarah Sanders while destroying Roseanne for her disgusting “joke” about Valerie Jarrett.
This is a very teachable moment: the Left believes they are the only ones who can say disgusting things. Even then, they can only be said at the expense of their political opponents.
The reason I mention this is because it should send a clear message to Roseanne: abandon your liberal ideologies. They’ve only ever brought misery and pain to people. Abortion means death, gay marriage is sinful, weed is self-destructive and stupid, transgenderism is a mental disease and there is only one Lord God Almighty, who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Supporting Trump is a good first step. It means that she has been thinking a little bit about what Obama has done to this country. Hopefully, she will continue thinking more as time goes by and eventually finds Christ.
I don’t see any reason to support her words or actions. They were pretty bad, to say the least. It’s clear that she is still very much a liberal, but that can change. I know that many of you reading this might support Roseanne Barr and might be angry with me. That is fine, you are free to do so. But I ask that you consider reason here. Why support Roseanne for what she said? Why support her for being fired over that tweet? Just because she supports Trump? Trump isn’t the be all, end all of the conservative movement. He’s its current face and leader, for certain, but the movement will continue long after he ceases to be President and eventually goes to Heaven.
Just supporting Trump doesn’t give license for people to do bad things. On contraire, it usually means that people are considerate enough and smart enough to know between right and wrong. Liberals have a very warped sense of right and wrong, as you have clearly seen.
The distinction must be made between a Trump supporter and a conservative. Trump supporters tend to be conservatives, and most of them are, but not always. Conservatives tend to be supportive of Trump, and most are, but not always, for some baffling reason.
Roseanne may be a Trump supporter, but she’s no conservative. Not even close.
“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While the Left constantly accuses Trump and his administration of separating children from their families and mistreating illegal immigrants, they fail to recognize that Obama just so happened to not be such a friend to illegals either.
Over Memorial Day weekend, AZCentral.com shared an article about illegal immigrant children being detained by ICE, with a picture (above) showing a couple of kids sleeping on the floor in a cage. Horrifying images for certain, but the Left made the mistake of attributing the pictures to Trump’s ICE, not Obama’s.
Jon Favreau, Obama’s speechwriter, tweeted about it, eventually deleting the tweet upon learning that his old buddy was to blame for the pictures.
Regardless, he still felt compelled to try to spin it in order to blame Trump, saying: “These awful pictures are from 2014, when the government’s challenge was reconnecting unaccompanied minors who showed up at the border with family or a safe sponsor. Today, in 2018, the government is CREATING unaccompanied minors by tearing them away from family at the border.”
Sure, Obama was trying to reunite families, so his intentions definitely excuse such mistreatment of these children. That definitely is a good point.
Seriously, these guys could excuse Obama for a second Holocaust if they felt his intentions were noble.
But let’s move on to other embarrassed liberals. Antonio Villaraigosa, former L.A. mayor and California gubernatorial candidate, tweeted: “Speechless. This is not who we are as a nation.”
The irony lies in that these are some of the words said by Obama regarding many different things. “This is not who we are.”
Of course, he later had to delete the tweet, but people had already noticed, including noted conservative activist Stephen Miller, who replied to Villaraigosa: “Hello, Antonio. Why did you delete this tweet? Is it because this was 2014 and you are no longer outraged because who this all happened under? Are you no longer speechless? Help explain, thanks.”
Villaraigosa made the mistake of actually replying to Miller: “Taking children from their parents whether it’s under a Democrat president or a Republican one doesn’t make it any more right. The key issue is not when it started, but when will it end. It’s wrong. It’s wrong for Democrats. It’s wrong for Republicans. It’s wrong for Americans.”
I doubt he actually believes in what he is saying. His tweet was not necessarily political or even giving blame to anyone. His tweet was relatively objective, so why delete it? It still makes sense under that line of thinking. People should still be speechless by such an inhumane act. So why delete the tweet? Furthermore, if it’s as outrageous as he believes it is, why not bash Obama over it? Or at least blame ICE leadership from 2014?
That’s why I find difficulty believing what he says. He thinks it’s outrageous if he believes Trump is the cause of it, but doesn’t think it’s outrageous if it was Obama’s administration who was in charge during that time.
CNN reporter Hadas Gold, who shared the tweet initially, wound up deleting it as well and sent out this ridiculous explanation: “Deleted previous tweet because gave impression of recent photos (they’re from 2014)”
Here was her original tweet: “First Photos of separated migrant children at holding facility.”
That’s not giving the impression, that’s explicitly saying it’s recent.
Alas, we move on to the next embarrassed liberal. New York Times Magazine’s Editor-in-Chief Jake Silverstein also weighed in, calling the photos “disturbing”, before also deleting the tweet.
He then offered this excuse: “Correction: this link, which was going around this morning, is from 2014. Still disturbing, of course, but only indirectly related to current situation. My bad (and a good reminder not to RT things while distracted w/ family on the weekend).”
What situation? As far as we know, this isn’t happening under Trump’s ICE. As the pictures are from 2014, we only know OBAMA was doing this, not Trump. I’m not saying these illegal immigrant families and children are living in luxury comparable to Trump Tower, but Trump might be treating them better than Obama. Considering these photos, the bar was set pretty low.
Perhaps my favorite embarrassed liberal’s response, however, came from Women’s March co-founder Linda Sarsour, who decided to leave her tweet up but still attack Trump like the crazy woman she is: “No amnesia here. Our immigration system is a disaster and was a disaster long before Trump came along. Now it will become increasingly worse under this White Supremacist Administration who have made their hatred for immigrants crystal clear.”
From what I can see, Obama hated ILLEGALS more than Trump does, so I don’t know what she’s talking about here.
But she certainly gives me a lot to work with here. First, it’s interesting to see her admit Trump didn’t “create the disaster” that is our immigration system (though one can argue that it is a disaster, but for different reasons than the Left would give you). While she does not specifically bash the Obama ICE leadership for this, she’s at least sober-minded enough to realize you can’t flat out blame everything on Trump (though it’s not come from lack of trying).
Second, I can always make the case that white supremacy has always been entrenched in the Democrat Party and continues to be the case to this day, if only through legislative measures and not in speech. But one does not need to go too far to see the effect of the Left’s disastrous policies on black communities.
Lastly, Trump doesn’t hate immigrants. He doesn’t even hate illegals. He’s not deporting them because he hates them. He’s deporting them because they are here illegally and should suffer the consequences of such actions. We are a nation living under rule of law. Someone breaks the law, they suffer accordingly for it. Everyone that is here when they don’t have permission or a right to be here must be kicked out. If they wish to return, they are more than welcome to do so through legal means.
The only people who enact or enforce laws based on hatred is the Left and Democrat Party.
Finally, we have BLM leader Shaun King, the whitest black man to have ever lived, giving his own two cents on the matter: “I saw this photo floating around and didn’t know if it was real. It is,” the radical leader said. “Children of immigrants are being held in cages, like dogs, at ICE detention centers, sleeping on the floor. It’s an abomination.”
Imagine the shock in his face when he discovered that his fellow fake-black-guy of a President was the one responsible for the pictures.
Now, AZCentral, the source for the article, had to issue a clarification, saying: “Photos of children at a migrant holding facility have gone viral on social media. The pictures are from 2014. They were originally posted with this azcentral article about unaccompanied migrant children who were transported to a facility in Arizona.”
I simply can’t keep in my laughter at the ignorance of these liberals. Now, to be completely fair, I can’t exactly expect them to do their own research. They’re Leftists, after all. Really, anyone could’ve been fooled without the appropriate research, but that’s not what I’m most focused on.
I don’t blame them for having been fooled. I don’t even blame them for tweeting their original tweets. I do, however, blame them for trying to pretend it’s not a big deal because it was Obama who was responsible. And I do blame them for still trying to attack Trump, despite the fact that the pictures depicted the way Obama’s ICE chose to treat these children.
It’s their hypocrisy that I have a problem with. They thought those pictures were horrifying and outrageous when they believed they were recent and under Trump’s administration. But upon learning Obama’s ICE was responsible for the pictures, they don’t think it’s as big a deal or anywhere near as outrageous. Despite them saying they do think it’s bad and outrageous, it’s clear that their anger and outrage left them when they discovered the truth.
It was a big deal only when they thought Trump was responsible, and that’s what I have a problem with.
Earlier, I mentioned that they would’ve excused Obama for a second Holocaust if they believed his intentions were noble. Similarly, if Hitler had been a Democrat President, they would’ve excused the first one.
That’s the kind of double-standard they set for themselves. Everything a Republican does is bad and everything a Democrat does is good. If a Democrat does something they would attack a Republican for, they either bury the story, ignore it entirely, or excuse it to the best of their ability. They were ok with sexual assault and harassment until they figured they could attack Trump on it.
Don’t misunderstand, they are still ok with it. Once Trump is done being President, or any sort of problem for the Left altogether, they will go back to excusing the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.
But morality is a different matter altogether. Here, I just want to focus on their hypocrisy, which is painfully obvious.
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
James Comey is set to release his book: “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership” on April 17th, 2018. Expectedly, the Left, upon reading excerpts from the book, is praising it and making the claim that there are issues in that book that could really hurt Trump. Spoiler alert: they’re all nothing-burgers.
But that’s a different matter entirely. What I’m focusing on is the fact that, because the media is praising the book and saying this will hurt Trump, the RNC released a video that shows Leftist hypocrisy at its highest.
The video is a compilation of Democrats calling into question Comey’s integrity, credibility and judgment.
The video features short clips of people like Sen. Chuck Schumer saying that he was “appalled by what Director Comey did” upon re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails; Sen. Bernie Sanders saying: “Comey acted in an outrageous way”; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying: “[Comey] made a mistake… not in the right job”; and even a tweet from Howard Dean reading: “[Comey] may have destroyed the credibility of the FBI forever.”
Which is really saying something when you fast-forward from that moment to today, when the FBI’s credibility as a whole is in tatters.
But perhaps one of the most telling quotes comes from Rep. Jerry Nadler, who said: “The President should fire Comey immediately and he ought to initiate an investigation.”
Now, unfortunately, I couldn’t quite confirm when Nadler said this, but I have every reason to believe he was talking about Obama, not Trump.
Furthermore, upon doing some more research, I came across an article, interestingly enough published on ABC News’ website, that depicts some of the very same Democrats in the video calling on Comey to resign.
First, they have Chuck Schumer, who said: “I do not have confidence in him any longer.”
Then, Nancy Pelosi, whom they quote with the very same quote from this video, saying that he’s not right for the job.
They also have Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN): “If Director Comey cares about the bureau and the rule of law… I’m sure upon reflection of this action, he will submit his letter of resignation for the nation’s good.”
They quote Rep. Maxine Waters: “All I can tell you is the FBI director has no credibility. That’s it.” And even said, in an interview with MSNBC in which she complained about Trump firing Comey, that “If [Clinton] had won the White House, I believe that, given what he did to her and what he tried to do, she should have fired him.”
I just love the Left’s hypocrisy some times.
From now on, every time you see James Comey tweeting at Trump and you see your friend retweeting what he said to or about him, remind them that even Democrats thought he was not credible and lacking in integrity.
Now, going beyond all of that, I believe this is a teachable moment.
You can clearly see what the Left thinks of James Comey when he acts in a way that they do not like. When he steps out of line. When he has some influence in the election and it’s not to hurt the Republican candidate. They attack, bash and destroy him. They question his credibility, his integrity, his judgment and even whether he’s the right person for the job… all of which is something we have been doing since Comey’s firing.
They loved him when he closed the investigation on the Clinton e-mails and let a criminal walk free but berate him when he re-opens the investigation and dealing a blow to Hillary’s chances of winning the election.
Now, I’m not going to say that that very action is what cost Hillary the election. Obama was the worst President of all time and she was just going to be more of the same and the country was tired of it. She was likely going to lose, open investigation or not. But I won’t deny that the re-opening of the investigation hurt Hillary to a certain extent.
Upon the closing of the investigation (the first time), the media had prime opportunity to bury any remnants of an investigation having ever taken place and focus more of their time on Trump. Closing the investigation would’ve allowed the Democrats to claim Hillary’s innocence, but all of those opportunities went out the window when Comey re-opened the investigation (before promptly closing it once more soon after because his friends were angry with him).
The Left’s bias is evident. When Comey helped Hillary, he was a “good guy”, “full of integrity” and “perfectly credible”. But when he steps out of line and does something to anger the Democrats aka doing the right thing, they berate and bash him, hoping to assassinate his character.
Now, he’s back where the Left wants him to be, as a martyr for the Leftist cause to take down Donald Trump, and they have nothing but good things to say about him and his book.
But all of that is irrelevant when there’s very accessible records of Democrats attacking Comey in much a similar way that Donald Trump attacks him. He has questioned his credibility, and evidently, so have the Democrats.
Now, if they’re hoping this book will be the end of Trump, they will be very much disappointed. I doubt this book, particularly when reminding people of what Democrats have said about the author, will do much if anything to harm Trump. If Michael Wolff’s book did nothing, neither will this.
At least this attempt at taking down Trump is a nice change of pace from giving credibility to a porn star. Though they will get back to her once the “hype” for this book dies down.
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
This is a topic I’ve been covering quite a bit recently, but this is a specific argument I would love to share with you: the people who believe in white privilege are hypocrites. And in more than one sense.
First, the white people who believe in white privilege are hypocrites because, despite their seemingly “self-aware privilege”, they do nothing about it. For example, schools administrators in Canada are posting a series of white-shaming posters on school walls. One particular poster (the one above) depicts the superintendent of schools in British Columbia with the caption: “I have unfairly benefitted from the colour of my skin. White privilege is not acceptable.”
Aside from the fact that it’s an eye-rolling statement, it’s also a hypocritical one. Here, she seemingly accepts that “white privilege” is real and that she’s “benefitted” from it. But do you honestly think she’ll do anything to “make things fair”? Or to get rid of the “benefits”? No. In however way she believes she has benefitted from being white, I can tell you that she’s not willing to give that up.
If she believes she got her job because of her “white privilege”, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell she’ll feel guilty enough to resign. If her “white privilege” allowed for the salary she makes, she’s not going to feel guilty enough to take a big pay cut. If her “white privilege” has allowed her to live in a nice house (I don’t know if she does, but I imagine it’s decent), she’s not going to feel guilty enough to move to a desolate place.
All she’s doing is appearing to be “politically correct” in shaming herself for being white but she will never actually do anything to “rectify” herself. That’s why I call her a hypocrite. She believes in the idiotic concept of “white privilege” but would never actually do anything that would take away the “benefits” of her “privilege”.
Now, I also said that there was another way that they are hypocrites. The first way is more specific to white people, but this other way is more for anyone who believes “white privilege” is real, whether they are white or a minority (although I honestly don’t know too many minorities who believe in this. It might be a strictly white issue to be white).
The way they are hypocrites is that they disregard Martin Luther King’s speech entirely. Dr. King had a dream that his children (and, by extension, all people of color) would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Any person that believes white privilege is real entirely ignores that very concept.
For someone, anyone, to say that someone got where they got simply because of their race is to be racist themselves. It’s to be judgmental of someone else’s skin color. Anyone who says Trump is President just because he’s a rich, white man is both ridiculous and racist.
Why? Because if someone’s race or skin color is at the forefront of your mind, then you’re racist. And that’s an inarguable statement. If someone’s biggest issue with Obama was that he is black, then that person is racist. But if his biggest issue with Obama was that he is a communist, that’s not racist at all, although try telling that to any Leftist or anyone in the media.
To attack someone just because they are white is to be racist, even if the attacker is white themselves. I’ve already shared, in a previous article, the story of how Chuck Schumer won’t vote for one of Trump’s judicial nominees simply because he’s white. I’ll make the same argument here as I did in that previous article. Could you imagine the backlash against Schumer if the judge’s skin color was brown or black? Schumer said that the courts under Trump are “too white”.
Let’s replace the word “white” with the word “black”. I’ll even repeat a couple of sentences in my previous paragraph.
“… Chuck Schumer won’t vote for one of Trump’s judicial nominees simply because he’s black… Schumer said that the courts under Trump are ‘too black’.”
If you read that statement back to anyone on the street and omitted the name, they would agree 100% that it’s racist. So why isn’t it racist when it’s the other way around? Why is there no backlash against the Senator? Why is it ok for him to vote against someone just because he’s white?
And that’s not the only example of hypocrisy. Relatively recently, President Trump called Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) someone with a “low I.Q.”
What was Waters’ response? To call him racist. Speaking with MSNBC’s “AM Joy”, the low I.Q. Representative said: “This President… has been name calling. He’s been saying all kinds of things. And I certainly expected him to come out with some racist remark about me. So he did exactly what I expected him do.”
Trump called her an idiot and she showed everyone exactly how right he is. Why would she think he’s being racist? Well, aside from the fact that she believes anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is racist, it’s the fact that she’s black. In her mind, Trump saying she has a “low I.Q.” is racist just because she’s black and goes by the assumption that all black people are dumb.
In her mind, the only reason Trump is saying she has a low I.Q. is because she’s black, not because she actually likely has a low I.Q. That line of reasoning comes from the belief that all black people are dumb. That’s the only way to tie race with intelligence in this case.
Alternatively, if she doesn’t have that fundamental belief that black people are dumb (and I, for one, believe she does), it could be that she believes her skin color should somehow keep people from attacking her politically whatsoever. And that’s equally as racist. If anything, that’s black privilege.
If she believes that just because she’s black, that she’s exempt from being attacked in this manner and anyone who does is racist for doing it, that’s black privilege.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that such an act would be equally as racist for any Hispanic. Let’s take, for example, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). If he had been the one to be called someone with “low I.Q.” and he said that it’s racist, then you can logically conclude that he believes in some sort of Hispanic privilege. That Trump would be racist for saying he has a low I.Q. That he should be somehow exempt from being attacked just because he’s Hispanic.
Interestingly enough, that sort of thing doesn’t apply to conservatives or Republicans. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both Hispanic and are viciously attacked by the Left (not always, since neither is their main focus: Trump).
Being protected by your skin color only applies if you’re a Democrat. How many people called Hillary privileged? She’s white too. How many people have called Pelosi and Schumer privileged? They’re white too. In their minds, these white people are excused from their privilege because they are adamantly against it, at least in speech, not necessarily in deed.
It all ties to the larger, never-ending hypocrisy of the Left. A white Canadian superintendent won’t face any sort of negative coverage from the media (not that many people care, really) because she’s attacking her own skin color. Which, again, begs the question: what would happen if you replaced the word “white” with the word “black”?
Could you imagine the outrage over a black superintendent posting a poster shaming him or herself for being black? Or could you imagine the backlash if the poster wasn’t about the fact that the superintendent is white but that she’s a woman and that’s what has benefited her?
Could you imagine the outrage over black people attacking other black people for being black?
How come there’s no outrage (at least from the media) over white people attacking other white people for being white? White folks are people too.
Now, there’s something to be seriously learned here. In the past, the Left would be hateful towards black people; enslaving them, selling them as property and treating them as such, and going so far as to fight to keep their “right” to own a person. I’ll quote you once again what former Democrat superstar Robert Byrd said about black people: “I am loyal to my country… but I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die… than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wilds.”
Here, Byrd is equating black people to wild animals. So his hatred for black people is very clear. But today, that hatred is directed at white people (at least in speech, not in political deeds and agenda). White people are the new targets of the Left.
This leads me to further cement my belief that the Left hates absolutely everybody. They have, historically, HATED black people. They currently HATE white people. They hate men. They hate women (how else do you explain their support of a “religion” that treats them as less than garbage?) They hate EVERYONE! They see people not as people but as mere things to categorize. Things to own and rule over.
They see everyone else as being beneath them. So when someone who, in their minds, should be beneath them rises to the role of President as Donald Trump did, they are left infuriated and their hatred running amok. That’s my best explanation as to why the Left is acting the way they are towards Trump and his supporters. They see him as someone who should never have even come CLOSE to the highest office in the land that, in their eyes, belongs solely to them.
It’s not difficult to find the incessant hatred of the Left. To say that the Left is full of sympathetic, kind and loving people is to say a sick joke. They are anything but all those things. History shows us exactly who and what they are: the Party of Hatred. The Party of Evil. And the Party of Hypocrisy.
1 John 2:9
“Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Truth be told, I’m not at all surprised that the audience didn’t applaud or cheer for an actor thanking America in his Oscar speech, but I am surprised that even ONE of them did as much.
Recently, the 90th Academy Awards took center stage for… some people, as its ratings hit an all-time low. As expected, it was full of dumb political banter that only served to make the Hollywood elites and MSM happy while the rest of the people who dared themselves to sit through it simply groaned at the largest gathering of morons during the week.
The event was chock-full of conservative-bashing jokes, highly hypocritical “#MeToo” references, gun-control advocacy and a disgusting call for “unity” with “Dreamers” by a couple of award-winners. Now, I’m getting all of this from other conservative news sites; I didn’t watch the Oscars. That’s not to say I boycotted them… boycotting would mean that I ever gave even half a rat’s behind about the event and the people in it and had to struggle to keep myself from watching. People boycott the NFL because they actually care about football. People don’t boycott the Oscars because far fewer people could bring themselves to actually care about it.
But despite the expectedly high levels of celebrated insanity, one award-winner actually said something that I appreciate in his speech. That award-winner is none other than Gary Oldman, winning the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Sir Winston Churchill in the movie “Darkest Hour”.
Oldman began his acceptance speech: “My deepest thanks to the Academy and its members for this glorious prize. I owe this and so much more to so many. I’ve lived in America for the longest time and I’m deeply grateful to her for the loves and the friendships I have made and the many wonderful gifts it has given me: my home, my livelihood, my family, and now Oscar.”
As expected, the audience didn’t give two hoots about Gary Oldman’s appreciation for America, simply sitting in silence and, frankly, boredom.
He continued, saying: “The movies, such is their power, captivated a young man from south London, and gave him a dream…” before thanking family members and friends, prompting the audience to applaud.
He concluded his speech by saying: “I would just like to salute Sir Winston Churchill, who has been marvelous company on what can be described as an incredible journey, and my wife, Gisele, for traveling that road with me and being at my side… I would like to thank my mother who is older than the Oscar. She is 99 years young next birthday (triggering applause) and she’s watching the ceremony from the comfort of her sofa. I say to my mother, thank you for your love and support. Put the kettle on, I’m bringing Oscar home.”
Now, when it comes to thanking family, friends and the people working with you, it only makes sense for the audience to applaud that. It’s something just about everyone does and it’s an act worthy of applause. But the lack of applause when Oldman thanked this country for the gifts she has bestowed upon him highlights how much of the audience (not necessarily all of it) feels about America. Putting aside every other braindead joke that only people with equally low IQs would laugh at, that deafening silence describes just what they think about America: it deserves no such praise.
It deserves no such praise because of the very individual it elected into office. It deserves no such praise because of the constitutional rights it gives to every citizen in the U.S., particularly the 2nd Amendment. It deserves no such praise because of the “racial inequality” that exists in this country. It deserves no such praise because of the very perverts and sexual predators they heralded as gods until last year.
To them, America should not be celebrated or praised in any way unless it’s fundamentally changed to fit their desired mold. They want to be the only ones with a voice; the only ones with the weapons. Such is the state of their super egos. Everyone believes in something, whether it’s God, Allah, Buddha, or themselves. In this case, these Hollywood elites believe in themselves and themselves only. And not in the “just believe in yourself and you can do it!” type of belief. More in the “I’M A GOD! WORSHIP ME, FILTHY PEASANTS! WATCH MY MOVIES AND WORSHIP THE VERY GROUND I WALK ON!” type of belief.
Because that’s precisely the kind of belief it takes to advocate for gun control and confiscation in their position. They won’t be the ones to suffer from it. They have the money to hire armed guards. They don’t hate guns. They hate the idea of ANYONE ELSE having guns.
Much in the same way they “support” illegal immigrants. They declare they stand with them. And stand they do… at least 500 yards away from them… behind armed security… within their homes… which are surrounded by 10ft. walls.
The America they want to live in is the America where only THEY get to enjoy the fruits of capitalism while bad-mouthing it. They want to live in a socialist country while they live like capitalists. I believe I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat it here: it’s the reason I don’t believe Bernie Sanders is a true socialist. A true socialist would be willing to LIVE like a socialist: dirt poor, down-trodden, bitter and angry at his lot in life, believing he should be given free stuff by the government. Bernie is bitter, sure. He’s angry, no doubt. He believes the government should give free stuff to people, utterly ignoring the economic aspects of such an act. But he doesn’t live dirt poor (he has a net worth just below $1 million, according to the Motley Fool). He doesn’t live down-trodden (he owns three different homes).
He speaks like a socialist while living like a capitalist. Much of Hollywood is the exact same way. Hypocrites, all of them, with a God-complex that makes them believe everyone should live exactly the way they say people should.
Putting the brakes on the Hollywood-bashing train, I would like to commend Gary Oldman for doing something no other Hollywood actor is ever expected to do: thanking America. And I’m not the only one thanking him for that. A myriad of other people on Twitter appreciated his gratitude for America, even if the Mainstream Media chooses to utterly ignore it.
“Finally! Thank God for Gary Oldman who’s thankful for the gifts America gave him,” commented one user.
“Finally someone on the Oscars thanks America for all it has done for them instead of slamming our country! Thank you Gary Oldman! Job well done!” remarked another.
“Gary Oldman finally won his Oscar and was the first person I’ve seen actually thank AMERICA!!!!!! Wooo you go man”
And finally: “Wow. Gary Oldman! Good for you for saying America gave you support for your dreams.”
The reason I mention that last tweet is due to the last part of it. America supported Oldman’s dreams of becoming an actor. If you ask me, THAT is a dreamer. Not the degenerates who have no respect for our rule of law.
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli 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...