In an article where I defended the idea of Christians defending President Trump, I noted how it was sinful to lie and to bear false witness against someone. In this case, I am certainly not surprised that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg would lie and bear false witness against the Founding Fathers, but I still feel the need to clean the stain that he is trying to leave behind.
Speaking to children in a school (making sure they grow up to hate America just as much as he does), Mayor Pete tried to convince the children present that the Founding Fathers were silly, ignorant troglodytes who did not understand right from wrong and did not understand that slavery was not good.
“Similarly, the amendment process; they were wise enough to realize that they didn’t have all the answers, and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery, or civil rights. It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing. They did not respect civil rights, and yet they created the framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution too and ensure true equal protection for all,” said the fake Christian.
While it sounds like he is praising the Founding Fathers in some places, he is doing nothing but passive aggressively insulting them when he is completely wrong about this.
Of course, the fake Christian Democrat was blasted online for his words, with people like historian and columnist Jay Cost saying: “The ignorance is astounding” on Twitter.
To further emphasize just how ignorant and wrong Mayor Pete is, he elaborated that the guy who wrote the Constitution, Governor Morris, “gave an amazing series of speeches in Philadelphia denouncing slavery.”
James Madison, on August 8th, 1787, made notes of the debates regarding the text of the Constitution featuring Morris and wrote:
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert ‘free’ before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south widely & every step you take thro’ ye great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
Suffice to say, as Madison’s own words can be considered, many of the Founding Fathers were vehemently AGAINST slavery and found it to be an abhorrent practice. When Madison writes: “Are they property? Why then is no other property included?”, he is basically talking about the discussion and debates they had been having over this matter. No one was debating whether someone’s house was property, or whether someone’s dog as property or whether someone’s furniture was property. They were debating whether slaves, fellow human beings who very much look like human beings, even if they have a different skin color, are property or are to be considered their fellow Man, and it’s quite clear where James Madison stood on this.
And Madison is far from the only Founding Father to hold slavery with such disdain. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most often demonized for having owned slaves at one point, had originally written this in a draft of the Declaration of Independence but eventually took it out: “He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”
Jefferson is charging King George III with waging war against HUMAN nature and violating the sacred right to life and liberty of PERSONS in Africa that he sent to the colonies to turn into the slaves of the highest bidders. If he didn’t consider African slaves to be people and humans, he wouldn’t have written this in his draft and the only reason I could consider for having taken it out is because some people were debating in favor of holding slaves and did not want that part in the Declaration of Independence, as it would’ve delegitimized their slave-owning practices.
In a letter to Lawrence Lewis on August 4th, 1797, our nation’s first president, George Washington, wrote: “I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery.”
Washington, by the way, was another target of the hateful Left as being demonized for having owned slaves at one point, but he clearly loathed the practice.
Our nation’s second president, John Adams, wrote on June 8th, 1819: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States… I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in… abhorrence.”
Our Founding Fathers minced no words about how they felt about slavery. Now, Leftists could say “but if they hated it so much and thought it so evil, why didn’t they do something about it?” and I’ve already explained elsewhere why this is: slavery, as a practice, was dying at the time, not to mention that they did do things to end slavery.
From December 2nd, 1793 to March 3rd, 1795, the 3rd Congress debated and eventually passed a bill to suppress slave trade and prohibiting the U.S. from trading with foreign countries. What’s more, multiple sessions in the Senate and House held debates regarding the abolition of slavery for a very long time.
For a time, the U.S. prohibited slave trading ships from entering and limited the number of slaves. Again, the practice was dying and Congress, at least the Senators and Representatives who wanted to end the practice and had the power to do so, worked towards killing the practice faster. The only thing that made slavery worse and caused a resurgence of it, particularly in the South, was the invention of the cotton gin, which made picking cotton (which used to be extremely difficult and hardly worth the hassle) a far easier thing to accomplish. This drove up demand for slaves to pick cotton and as a result, slave trade continued and, as I said, got worse until the Emancipation Proclamation.
The notion that our Founding Fathers “did not understand that slavery was a bad thing” is completely erroneous and ignorant. The Founding Fathers, particularly the notable ones, ABHORRED the practice of slavery and hoped that it would be put to an end one day, having done what they could with the time that they had. And the work they did in limiting and prohibiting slave trade would’ve been quintessential to ending slavery altogether in the country if the cotton gin had not driven up demand for slavery and caused Congress to amend and lift those prohibitions.
The Founding Fathers made their views on slavery perfectly clear and it is wrong for anyone, let alone a Presidential candidate, to smear them as these ignorant Neanderthals who hardly knew right from wrong and stumbled their way to allowing for future generations to change things for the better. Not that I expect any different from Pete Buttigieg or anyone else on the Democrat Party. Their hatred for this country, particularly for its founding principles, is no secret. Failed Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke also tried to smear the country’s very founding as racist and bigoted. No Democrat running for president, and no Democrat holding any sort of electoral seat, can be said that they hold any love for this country.
And with ignorant statements such as the ones by Buttigieg, it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion, choosing to live in a world of fairy tales where violence doesn’t occur and people are naturally good. That simply is not the reality we live in and as a result, people have to be able to defend themselves if and when the unimaginable does happen.
I say this largely because of the rather bloody and strange weekend we recently had. Let’s begin with the earliest story of the weekend, which is of an anti-Semitic attack by two women in New York (which ended an entire week of roughly 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the Democrat-owned state).
While this one did not really result in anyone’s death (thankfully), it showcases the need for people to be able to defend themselves regardless. A woman, Tiffany Harris, was arrested after having assaulted three Jewish women and shouting anti-Semitic slurs at them. She was then released by the NYPD without bail and was arrested once again in another assault against another woman (though it’s unclear if the woman was Jewish too).
Again, this one is not outright deadly, but it easily could be, particularly since the hateful bigot will not face any charges or punishment for her actions due to Bill de Blasio’s irrational “bail reform” laws that allow for the bad guys to be released extremely easily.
It’s not even as if the hateful bigot denied that she did it. She flat out admitted to the police upon her arrest: “Yes, I slapped them. I cursed them out. I said ‘F-U, Jews.’” She ADMITTED to the assault but the police could do nothing about it because of the idiot mayor’s pandering to criminals for votes.
While this case has a little less to do with the kind of self-defense I will be talking about in this article, it does relate to the sort of idiocy (at best) that fills the Democrat Party’s minds when it comes to legislation. Criminals and anti-Semites get to run amok in New York and de Blasio even has the nerve to try and blame this on Trump and on Rudy Giuliani (these things didn’t happen, particularly to this extent, when Giuliani was mayor of NYC). He’s a fraud and a danger to the people of New York City.
Regardless, let’s move on to another anti-Semitic attack that happened in New York, where a machete-wielding man attacked Jews in a Hanukkah party, wounding five people. The man was arrested and according to Rockland County Assistant DA Michael Dugandzic, he “was found with blood all over his clothing and a strong smell of bleach in the car, like he was trying to destroy evidence.”
Anti-Semitism has been on the rise in Democrat-owned New York, while the Democrats have tried to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the President and his “inflammatory rhetoric” despite the fact that it’s the Democrats in the House who failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because their openly anti-Semitic party members didn’t want to be singled out and Pelosi caved to their demands, switching from condemning anti-Semitism to condemning all hatred in general.
Again, the Democrat Party owns New York, where the bulk of this anti-Semitism is occurring. I don’t care whether or not you think Trump’s rhetoric is “inflammatory” (it isn’t), one cannot realistically blame Trump for anti-Semitic attacks when he has been the most pro-Jewish president in recent history. And for all the “anti-Muslim hatred” that he is accused of pushing, how come we don’t hear of stories where Muslims are targeted in anti-Muslim attacks? Not that I would want them to be, but the charge of Islamophobia is placed on Trump far more often than anti-Semitism, but we never hear of Muslims being targeted like this.
For all the charges of racism against Trump, we never really hear of anti-black attacks (unless they are made up stories like Jussie Smollett) or anti-Hispanic attacks as a result of Trump’s rhetoric. Granted, we also don’t often hear of anti-Semitic attacks largely because the media doesn’t care about them unless they are either fairly major (like the ones discussed) or can be blamed on Trump in some form or fashion. Again, the stories I talked about mark two of TEN anti-Semitic attacks in New York this week alone, but we have hardly heard anything about those other eight.
Now, moving on to the final act of violence that occurred this weekend, and what really drives the point of this article, let’s talk about the White Settlement church shooting that happened on Sunday.
During a Sunday service, a bad guy with a gun (who was a felon and wasn't legally allowed to own guns but still had them, further destroying any argument for gun control that clearly doesn't work) went into the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire on churchgoers. According to The Dallas Morning News, “one person died at the scene of the shooting, one person died en route to a hospital, and another person was transported to a hospital in critical condition. The shooter is believed to be one of those three people, said Fort Worth Fire Department spokesman Mike Drivdahl.”
The shooter was neutralized by an armed churchgoer, preventing the shooter from taking more lives than he did. This is thanks in large part to a bill signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last September that allowed for lawful gun owners to carry guns in places of worship. This law, by the way, was maligned by Democrats like Joe Biden, who said it was “totally irrational” to do that. It, in fact, is completely rational, as bad guys with guns will shoot wherever there are people to kill and will target people without guns (or people who worship God, if they hate Jews or Christians) no matter what the law says. This kind of law gives law-abiding citizens the ability to fight back should such a horrendous situation ever occur.
It’s for these kinds of situations that people have the right to defend themselves. Now, Leftists will still argue “if the bad guy with a gun didn’t have a gun in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”. True, but there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people. There will always be bad guys with guns, so no legislation in the world will get guns out of the hands of bad guys.
New Zealand implemented a “mandatory” gun buy-back program and it’s a complete and utter failure. California, the state with some of the strictest gun control laws, had EIGHT mass slayings in 2019, according to The Associated Press. The AP reports that a total of 41 mass slayings occurred nationally in 2019 (The AP defines mass slayings as killings were four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator). 33 out of those 41 mass slayings were firearm-related and, again, California was responsible for eight of them, the most out of any other state.
Despite the heavy gun control laws in places like California, Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc., we see some of the most bloodshed in such places. Now, Leftists could argue that if guns simply were not there, these things wouldn’t happen, which is altogether wrong. No shootings would happen, but killings would still occur. Just look at London and other places in the U.K. being ravaged by stabbing attacks day in and day out to find my words ring true.
Bad people will look for ways to hurt and kill others. Restricting good people from being able to defend themselves only worsens the problem and makes easy targets out of the innocent.
Had Texas not had the law that allowed for gun owners to carry inside places of worship, far more people would’ve died. The perpetrator had a gun and little was going to keep him from committing an act of violence. The little that keeps him from doing it is a good guy with a gun ready and able to fight back.
And returning to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York, do you think they would be anywhere near as bad if people were allowed to arm themselves? Recently, I had seen a picture on Twitter of Orthodox Jews openly carrying rifles in Rockland County (as seen above), the same county where the machete attack occurred. They have to protect themselves and have every right to do so, but New York laws restrict them. Of course, the particular Jews that were in those pictures do not have to worry too much about the existing gun control laws, but there’s no doubt that de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo want stricter laws which will only hurt the citizens of New York looking to arm themselves to protect themselves.
While the 2nd Amendment exists to protect people from a tyrannical government, a secondary benefit is that it allows for people to protect themselves against anyone who might wish to cause them harm, whether or not they are from the government.
The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well what tyranny looked like and wanted to prevent that from happening in the new country they had created. The 2nd Amendment was written and passed for the very purpose of keeping the government in check by We the People. The only reason this country isn’t far more authoritarian than it is is because of the 2nd Amendment, which is why it’s so heavily targeted by the authoritarian Left.
But the right to self-defense has existed long before guns were even a thing, as Jesus Christ Himself has advised His followers to arm themselves with a sword, even if it means selling the very clothes on your back.
We the People have the right to defend ourselves because the government cannot do a better job of it than we can.
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Veteran’s Day has come and gone, with many of us remembering the heroic struggles our soldiers have had to endure throughout the history of our country in the various wars that America has participated. So, Campus Reform’s Eduardo Neret went to Howard University in Washington D.C. to ask various students if they could think of any war the U.S. has participated in that could be considered a “just” war or a war that we could find justifiable reasons for entering and fighting (video below).
Not one student could come up with any war that they viewed as justified of their own merit. And even when asked if they thought WWII was a justified war for the U.S. to get involved, some students still believed there was no justifiable reason for having entered the conflict.
One student argued: “I don’t believe America fought [WWII] for the just reasons.” Another student said: “I don’t think [WWII] was necessary.”
Although a few students recognized World War II and the Civil War as being justified wars (once they were mentioned after previously having argued that there were no wars that were justified), many still held their ground and argued that no war was justified.
However, I know exactly why it is that many think this way: ignorance.
Now, I’m not trying to insult these kids. I’m not calling them dumb. But they are lacking in knowledge, which is what ignorance is. Why do I think this way? Well, one of the students who actually came around to the idea that World War II was justified gave the following response to having changed her mind:
“[WWII] [was] a good cause for the greater good because at the end of the day we got our freedom, and we are no longer under Great Britain.”
The poor girl is confusing World War II with the Revolutionary War. Either that or she thinks that Great Britain was in Nazi Germany’s place in World War II and we were under their control at the time, but I think the former is more likely.
The ones that continued arguing that WWII was not a justified war, when Pearl Harbor was brought up, said that that was a reason for having entered the war, but not a justified one. Again, I gotta blame ignorance here.
During the early 1940s, the general sentiment regarding World War II was that we shouldn’t enter the war. We had no reason to. Hitler was not a direct threat to us and we were supplying Great Britain with weapons and equipment.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has in their records public opinion in the U.S. about joining the war. When World War II began on September 1st, 1939, Gallup asked the following question: “If it looks within the next few months as if England and France might be defeated, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our troops abroad?” 42% said “yes”, 48% said “no” and 10% said they didn’t have an opinion.
The poll was close between the two answers, but the more popular idea was to stay out of the war, even if England and France were defeated over the next few months. I think the reason for it to have been this close is because if Germany had defeated both so quickly, it might’ve sent people in the U.S. into a panic, considering we were at least friendly towards those two countries, so the next target could’ve either been us or the Soviet Union.
On October 6th, 1939, when Poland was conquered by the Nazis and divided between them and the Soviets, Gallup asked the same question: if Germany defeats England and France, should we declare war on Germany? This time around, we found that only 29% of those surveyed said “yes” and 71% said “no.” We didn’t want to get ourselves involved in what was mostly seen as a European conflict.
On May 10th, 1940, when Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France, Gallup asked if we should declare war on Germany. This time, only 7% said “yes” and 93% said “no”. It should be noted that our military wasn’t exactly in tip-top shape before we entered the war. We only had a little more than 450,000 total military personnel in 1940. In 1941, with the draft having been passed by Congress in late 1940, that number jumped to 1.8 million, then to 3.9m in 1942, 9.1m in 1943, 11.6m in 1944 and 12.2m by the end of the war in 1945.
Our military was in poor shape but once drafting and more spending was implemented, we created the most powerful military the world had ever seen by that point.
By June of 1940, when France surrendered to Germany, public sentiment was still largely against going to war, but those who wished to enter the war and help became more numerous. 35% said they wanted to help England win against Germany, even at the cost of entering the war, and 61% said they should stay out of the conflict altogether.
By the time the draft was implemented in September of 1940, more people wanted to help (52%) than not do anything (44%). By November of 1940, when FDR was elected to his third term as POTUS, 60% wanted to help England and 40% wanted to keep out. In March of 1941, when Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act which authorized Roosevelt to provide Britain with weapons, vehicles and equipment, 67% wanted to help England and 33% wanted to keep out.
On June 22nd, 1941, when Hitler decided to turn his armies towards the Soviet Union, 62% said they wanted to help England and 33% said they wanted to keep out. Even on September 4th, 1941, when a German U-boat submarine attacked an American destroyer, the USS Greer, prompting FDR to authorize US ships to attack German vessels on sight, 64% wanted to help England and 30% wanted to keep out.
By November of 1941, when relations between the U.S. and Japan were at some of their most tense (pre-war, of course) and it looked as though we would fight them, 68% said they wanted to defeat Germany and 28% said they wanted to stay out of the war.
However, on December 7th, 1941, when the Japanese orchestrated a surprise attack on the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where 2403 people died, mostly military personnel and 68 civilians, this served to ignite the spark of war in the American engine. Gallup asked: “Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?”, 91% said “yes”, only 7% said “no” and 3% said they didn’t have any opinion.
This was the 9/11 of 1940s America (and the only attack of this scale on American soil until 9/11) and our country cried for war, cried for justice against Japan. And so, we officially declared war on Japan, which prompted Germany to declare war on the U.S., leading us to join World War II against the Axis powers.
No, we didn’t enter the war out of the kindness of our hearts to help Great Britain to defeat Hitler. Why would we have, when FDR’s New Deal was so similar to Mussolini’s fascism, wherein the welfare state was created and capitalism was put into the hands of the state, instead of the private sector? FDR was every bit the Leftist that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were and sought to socialize our economy. The eventual matchups of FDR-Stalin vs. Hitler-Mussolini (and Hirohito) were matchups of convenience for the time being. They were all Leftist, “government is God” type of leaders. Mussolini praised FDR’s book titled “Looking Forward” and the official Nazi newspaper, “Volkischer Beobachter” praised the New Deal.
We entered World War II not because FDR saw much or any threat in the fascists and Nazis in Europe infecting the rest of the world (he had his own brand of fascism that he was already implementing) but because we were attacked and over 2000 of our servicemen died at the hands of an Imperial Japan that we weren’t exactly getting along with.
When you are attacked, you have to respond. And that’s what we did. Those who would argue that we entered WWII without justifiable reasons are ignorant of history. For the most part, Americans wanted nothing to do with World War II, or to at most help out England without getting involved in the fighting if at all possible. But once it appeared war was imminent, and especially once it was brought to our shores, sentiment changed and we wanted to join and win the war.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Generally speaking, I’m anti-war. If it can be avoided, I would like to not get ourselves involved in wars, particularly in endless wars, which is why I hate that pro-war Republicans and Democrats are in Congress.
However, there are wars that we simply cannot avoid and wars that can be easily justified. The Revolutionary War was a war in which we sought our independence from a tyrannical monarch in Europe. That was justified. The Civil War was a war in which the North sought to both free all slaves in the country and reunite the Union after Southern Democrat States seceded following Lincoln’s election. That was very much justified.
And World War II most certainly can be justified considering both the threat that Hitler posed on the world and the attack that we suffered in Pearl Harbor.
Again, there are wars that are not justified and simply make no sense. But there are those that are essential and there are justifiable reasons for entering. I couldn’t imagine telling Poland that they weren’t justified in fighting Germany when they were being invaded by them.
These children, the ones that said no war was justified and stuck to it after being reminded of World War II, should be educated regarding history. But it’s a sad state of affairs when they are attending a college and have such minimal knowledge of the history of this country.
Ignorance is the real problem here. I would like to mention that every single one of the students asked were African-American, so you would think at the very least, they would’ve brought up the Civil War, since if the North had not done anything about the South, most black people in the country would be slaves (or at least would’ve been for a longer period of time).
But nope. Not one instance could they think of a just war. These kids aren’t being educated; they are being indoctrinated. They were taught that war is generally bad and that America is at fault for most of the conflicts we see today and the world has seen for some time. That no war America gets involved with is justified because we are the bad guys.
This is the sort of nonsensical and untruthful garbage being taught in our education systems today. How is it that these kids, or at least one of them, thinks that World War II was a war where we gained our independence from Britain?! The fact that there even is one person who thinks this is a damning statement about our education system.
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There are a number of reasons as to why I could not be bothered to watch the U.S. Women’s team win the World Cup (congratulations to them are in order, for sure) or watch them make a fool of themselves by throwing the American flag to the ground (surprise, surprise, it was Rapinoe, the Trump-hating star of the team, that did it, but another player picked it up, so kudos to her) and get together to start chanting “equal pay”, believing themselves to be the victims of misogyny. Namely, I hardly care about soccer as it is and was more preoccupied with observing NBA free agency. However, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see just what it was that the Women’s soccer team did after winning their second World Cup in a row: whine and moan that they are being treated “unfairly” and they deserve “equal pay” as the Men’s soccer team.
Well, there are a few problems with this entire debacle.
First of all, this is strictly a FIFA issue. Even Rapinoe had the sense to only call out FIFA for this “wage gap” between men and women because the players in the U.S. actually make around the same. According to the New York Times: “According to figures provided by U.S. Soccer, since 2008 it has paid 12 players at least $1 million. Six of those players were men, and six were women. And the women hold their own near the top of the pay scale; the best-paid woman made about $1.2 million from 2008 to 2015, while the top man made $1.4 million in the same period. Some women in the top 10 even made more than their male counterparts over those years.”
In other words, the talented and good players are paid top dollar, regardless of gender in the United States.
For FIFA, things are different, and while the international organization is marred by corruption, it is ridiculous to say that they are deliberately paying women less than men for sexist reasons. Why is it ridiculous? Difference in revenue.
FIFA pays its male players around $400 million and pays its female players around $30 million. From those two numbers alone and with no other information or context, you could say that there is, indeed, a wage gap. Men get a bigger piece of the pie than women… right? Actually, men get a smaller share of the revenue pie from FIFA than women do.
Here is what Forbes says about this: “As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”
In other words, the men get paid more than the women do because the men’s World Cup generates FAR more money than the women’s World Cup does. If the men generate more money, they earn more money. And as we can see from that quote, the share of the pie that the men get is actually less than the share the women get. Yes, the men are still paid more because they make more, but they are paid 7%-9% compared to the women’s 23%. So if you want “equal pay”, then either you’re going to have to get those women’s numbers up or lower the share the women get of the revenue.
Asking to be paid the same $400 million as the men in an organizational division that barely makes 32% of that would be to ask for financial ruin to the women’s World Cup. It’s sort of similar to asking for higher minimum wage. You might be getting paid more per hour, but you’ll see those hours cut heavily, so you end up either making the same (best case) or making less money than before per week (if you even get to keep your job in the first place).
What the two issues have most in common is that they both rely on emotion rather than logic. An organization that only makes around $130 mil cannot pay the same amount to its players as an organization that makes BILLIONS.
And that’s the second problem with this entire thing: the math makes it impossible for there to be “equal pay”. The women get a bigger share of the pie than men do, but the women’s pie is smaller than the men’s. Whatever share the men get is, as a result, most likely to be more money than what the women get. This is not an issue of misogyny or sexism or patriarchal, straight white men unfairly treating women as lesser than men. It’s a matter of revenue differences that affect people’s income. Again, the men get paid more because the men generate more revenue.
Now, I know what some still hysterical liberals might say: “But the women’s team is better than the men’s! They should be paid more as a result, according to your capitalistic logic!” While it’s true that the women’s team has historically been more successful than the men’s, you must realize that this is women competing against women versus men competing against men. This same women’s team that has won two World Cups in a row lost to a team of prepubescent boys a few years ago – kids around 13 and 14 years old. So the U.S. Women’s team can certainly beat other countries’ women’s team, but against the men, I doubt they’d do much better because of simple biology: men are physically superior to women.
Even in tennis, there have been five times when a woman played against a man. The woman only won once out of those five.
In 1973, 55-year-old Bobby Riggs took on 31-year-old Margaret Court in what is today called The Mother’s Day Massacre. Riggs beat Court 6-2, 6-1. Court was No. 1 in the world among women and had won three major titles. That same year, Riggs also played against Billie Jean King. The woman actually won that one (6-4, 6-3, 6-3).
But ever since then, men have won every match against women. In 1993, Jimmy Connors (40) played against Martina Navratilova (35) in what was called the “Battle of the Sexes”. While the first set was close (7-5), Connors dominated the second (6-2). What's more, there were special rules in place to favor Navratilova. Connors was only allowed one serve per point (if he hit the net on his serve, point Navratilova instead of a "fault" so no 2nd serve) and Navratilova was allowed to hit the ball into the doubles alleys where it would normally be an out on singles, but Connors had to play it normally.
And the most recent case came in 1998, when the Williams sisters claimed that no man outside the top 200 could beat them. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203 at the time, first destroyed Serena 6-1 and then destroyed Venus 6-2. Following the match, Serena said: “I didn’t know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women’s circuit and he got to them very easily.” Braasch even taunted the two after the match by saying: “They wouldn’t have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun.”
While I’m not so sure about Braasch’s comment regarding the way he played (though I do believe he took it a little easy), Serena’s comment shows us what we know to be true: men are physically superior to women. I believe her when she says that the shots she took would’ve been winners against women. I also believe that Braasch easily got to those shots as well.
So when it comes to the U.S. Women’s team, if they can’t even beat 13 and 14-year-olds (to be a little fair, it’s possible the women also took it a little easy on the boys, but the boys still beat them), how could they stand a chance against the men?
And do you want to know what else leads me to believe the Williams sisters at least should’ve realized before hand that men are physically superior to women? The fact that they had to specifically challenge men outside the top 200. If men and women are the same, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that the top women could compete with the top men? If the best man played against the best woman and the man won, what would be the excuse? “Well, he’s No. 1. Of course he won!” But wouldn’t that also be true of the woman? As it stands, Novak Djokovic is ranked No. 1 among men and the aforementioned Serena Williams is No. 1 among women. If they played, there’s no doubt in my mind Djokovic would obliterate Williams. But the reason for this isn’t because Djokovic is so good but because he’s a guy.
So going back to soccer, the U.S. Women’s team isn’t better than the Men’s. The Women’s team is more historically successful, but in terms of a head-to-head matchup, the men have the upper hand.
Much like in other aspects of the private sector, there is no such thing as a “gender wage gap”. Men make more money than women because men either will work more or generate more revenue as is the case for the Men’s Soccer team.
To claim there is discrimination at play is disingenuous at best and malignant at worst. Do they really expect to be paid around $400 million like the men do in an organization that itself generates only 30% of that? Do they want the Women’s division in FIFA to be financially ruined? Because that’s how you do it.
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
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.
Whenever I discussed gun control and the topic of Great Britain came up, I often times would point out their massive knife violence problem to suggest that bad people will do bad things regardless of tool and would often joke about the U.K. introducing “knife control” legislation to try and “combat” it, which would help about as much as gun control typically does.
But one British politician, Tory MP Scott Mann, made a suggestion on social media that the U.K. implement a knife registry like they do with guns and to plant GPS trackers on every knife.
Specifically, he wrote: “Every knife sold in the UK should have a gps tracker fitted in the handle. It’s time we had a national database like we do with guns. If you’re carrying it around you had better have a bloody good explanation, obvious exemptions for fishing, etc.”
While this is not exactly an official proposal, it is at least testing the waters to see if Parliament should go forward with something similar, but obviously with far greater detail.
But all this got was (much deserved) mockery.
One Twitter user wrote: “’There’s been a stabbing.’ ‘Quick, get me the GPS tracking for every knife in a 3 mile radius.’ ‘OK, it says there are 120,000 of them, mostly in kitchens.’ ‘Bollocks, thought we had them then.’ ‘Could ask those young lads with the machete.’ ‘Nah, they’ve got a mackerel, been fishing.’”
Another user wrote: “Have you got much in the way of a plan for how the police monitor the movement of the UK’s, let’s say 300 million knives?”
And this all barely gets into a fraction of the problems with this idea.
Shall I go over them quickly, since I’m fairly certain they will try and propose something like this at some point anyway and it’d be good to think over all the negatives, impossibilities and outright idiocies attached to such a plan?
Okay, then. I’ll do that. But where to begin? How about the fact that it’d be incredibly expensive and difficult to fit a GPS device into every single knife put into development from the moment the legislation passes?
Seriously, I don’t know how much it would cost to actually do that, but that sort of equipment is expensive and hard to mass produce for what I can only assume is a relatively conservative estimate of 300 million knives (considering the U.K.’s population sits at around 66 million and most people have a multitude of knives in their homes, I’d say that’s a very conservative estimate since each person would have to have roughly 4.5 knives and most people’s kitchens have A LOT more than that).
Another thing to consider is the fact that it’d be outright impossible to track every single one of these knives and even whether or not they are outside. The accuracy of these systems begins to dip farther than 5 meters or 16 feet. You would have to have an agent nearby surveilling particular knives to see if they are outside for any given reason, which makes it pretty much impossible to accurately track these things.
But perhaps the most laughable aspect of this entire thing is that, even if you did somehow find a way to pay for the implanting of GPS trackers in EVERY SINGLE KNIFE in the U.K. and could somehow track each one to an accurate degree, these GPS tracking systems are not likely to be dishwasher-safe and require batteries to operate. Meaning the person OWNING the knife would have to replace the battery of the GPS tracker in order for the tracker to work. And guess what people who don’t care about laws will prefer to do with a dying battery on a GPS tracker on what will be their desire weapon of choice?
So even if you somehow managed to climb over the massive hurdles relating to cost of both implanting GPS trackers into the knives and having enough man-power to track every single knife that winds up outside for any reason, the actual device would only be able to keep track of people who DON’T INTEND ON USING IT AS A MURDER WEAPON! If people are required by law to change the batteries in the systems, only THOSE WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW WILL DO IT.
And thus, we get right back on to the most important point anyone can make in a gun control or knife control argument: criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law.
As I have explained multiple times in the past, murder is already illegal. You are not allowed by law to kill your fellow human being unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in self-defense. And yet, people still do it. It’s not a problem with the law, but a problem with being unable to always enforce that law.
It is illegal to rape people, murder people, sell drugs to people, harass people, assault people, threaten people, etc. All are things that people do anyway because man is naturally evil.
So having a knife registry where you keep track of every knife via a GPS tracking system would AT BEST only keep track of law-abiding people AKA the people the government shouldn’t be targeting.
And that’s a best case scenario. Again, you would have to clear the nearly or actually impossible hurdles of 1) paying for the GPS tracking system in each and every single knife, 2) having the man-power to keep track of knives that somehow end up outside and 3) coming up with a way to not have the systems get destroyed upon the first wash.
And that’s all to amount to still not being able to stop knife crimes! Yeah, no, this is a great idea.
But this is ultimately what I’m trying to say: you can’t legislate evil. Evil will find ways to be evil. If evil wants to kill someone, they’ll find a way to do it. Take away evil’s gun, they’ll use a knife. Take away the knife, they’ll use blunt objects like baseball bats, pipes, and whatever they can get their hands on to inflict physical harm. Take away all of those things and they’ll use their fists. And as impossible as it is to take away people’s blunt objects (because just about anything can be a murder weapon from a baseball bat to a pen to even the very keyboard I’m writing on), you 100% cannot take away people’s fists to prevent them from hurting someone else.
The unfortunate truth of reality is that man is naturally evil and will often do evil deeds. You can’t enact these laws because these people don’t care about laws. You can try to enforce those laws, but that will never fully prevent anyone from doing something egregious. And most of the time, these laws end up hurting people more than helping them. Often times, when someone wants to legally buy a gun, they can run into trouble while the process is still going through. This sort of thing is especially the case if someone is trying to protect themselves from a dangerous and crazy ex or overall a stalker.
Something else to note is that people who intend to commit crimes with a gun will more often than not choose not to buy the gun legally.
How often has a shooter used his parents’ or friend’s weapons to commit the egregious act? How do you counter that? Often times, no new gun laws proposed in the aftermath of a shooting would include something that could’ve prevented the shooting. Even Diane Feinstein, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, admitted that no new gun law that Congress was looking at would’ve prevented that massacre.
There are simply way too many factors in place surrounding the event of a shooting or a knife attack for legislation and government agents to be able to work out. Certainly spending an irresponsible amount of money to invest in a device that at best will only help to keep track of the very people you do not need to keep track of is no way to do it.
And don’t misunderstand, there are people in Parliament who are looking to see what they should or could do with something similar. That tweet wasn’t just a random thought; it was testing the waters. They think it’s a solid enough idea that would simply need to be better polished and better explained than in a 280-characters-or-less tweet.
The fact that something like this was even suggested by someone in the U.K. government tells you the level of stupidity that is in place. Even if he’s a rarity in the U.K. government (which I highly doubt), he certainly at least brings down the curve.
“But a stupid man will get understanding when a wild donkey’s colt is born a man!”
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 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.
The stupidity of the American Left simply cannot be overstated. Despite the fact that Trump’s “animals” comments was clearly made to characterize the illegal immigrant criminal gang MS-13, and some MSM sources have had to issue corrections saying Trump was referring to MS-13, the Left has chosen to double down against Trump’s comments and chose to DEFEND the criminal gang.
In a press interview with C-SPAN, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: “We believe – some of us who are attracted to the political arena, to government and public service – that we are all God’s children, there is a spark of divinity among every person on Earth, and that we all have to recognize that as we respect the dignity and worth of every person and as we recognize our responsibilities with that spark of divinity within us. And so, when the President of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, ‘These aren’t people, these are animals,’ you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person?”
This is truly a gift from God. There is so much I can talk about here, I’m getting giddy.
Ok, let’s start with the glaringly obvious: Trump was not referring to all illegal immigrants here. He was referring, as is painfully obvious, to the criminal gang MS-13.
Do you know what MS-13’s motto is? “Kill, Rape, Control”. Doesn’t get much more animalistic than that.
Next, who in the world is Nancy Pelosi to accuse Trump of not believing in “the spark of divinity”? Who in the world is she to pretend to side with God? SHE SUPPORTS ABORTION! How is it that she defends animals like MS-13, saying they have a “spark of divinity” and still condemns pre-born babies to death, claiming they are not alive?
And by the way, if she were even close to being a Christian, which she tries to imitate here, she would know very well that there’s no such thing as a “spark of divinity” in humans. That would mean to even somewhat equate humanity to God, which is blasphemous. We are not divine. Quite the opposite, as humanity is naturally evil. So I don’t know where she gets this “spark of divinity” garbage from, but it’s certainly not from Christ or the Bible.
Not to mention she talks about the worth and dignity of a person. Again, I raise the issue of abortion. Why aren’t pre-born babies considered to have worth? Why aren’t they afforded any sort of dignity?
And she’s not the only lunatic Leftist to defend MS-13. Leftist freelance writer Rob Rousseau tweeted: “I would rather my daughter dated a member of MS-13 than a member of the Republican Party.”
It should be noted that Rousseau does not actually have a daughter. And thank the Lord for that, because she would be absolutely destroyed by such a thing.
Let me remind you what MS-13 does. They rape women, they beat them, they disfigure them until they are unrecognizable, they kill them and they dismember them. If an MS-13 gang member met Rousseau at his daughter’s request, the gang member would be the one holding the shotgun. Beyond that, he would use it to rob the guy. And that’s a best case scenario.
Honestly, to call these gang members “animals” is an insult to actual animals. I don’t fear my neighbor’s dog. I don’t fear going to the zoo. I would fear going to the neighborhoods these demons are occupying. I would fear my non-existent daughter dating a member of MS-13.
Thankfully, as far as I know, I don’t live anywhere near such a bad neighborhood, I live in a state that is not terrified of allowing its citizens to get guns, and I don’t plan on absolutely failing as a parent.
But returning to these idiots’ comments, I so enjoy seeing them defend such blatant evil. And this is vastly different from defending abortion, another blatant evil. They can at least b.s. their way into making abortion seem right. I’ve literally seen someone (can’t remember who) tweeting on Mother’s Day that abortion is “an act of love”. It’s ridiculous, but they can somewhat sell the idea to people. There is nothing they can possibly say about MS-13 that can in any way make them seem like good, or at least innocent people being targeted by Trump.
Even people who regularly buy into the b.s. they sell won’t take the bait for this. Even everyday liberals can see that defending MS-13 is not right.
I may have next to no faith in people, but I have enough to believe they aren’t stupid or wicked enough to defend MS-13 en masse. At the end of the day, MS-13 is still a gang. The only people who will defend a gang are members of said gang.
Let’s be honest here, the Left has royally screwed this one up. They had a glimmer of hope of defending MS-13 by telling people Trump was attacking all immigrants, or at least all illegal immigrants. The Left can always count on people’s ignorance. But the vast majority of people, at this point, can clearly see that Trump was just talking about MS-13.
Frankly, even if he was referring to all illegal immigrants, I would somewhat agree with him, since there are a lot of illegals who have raped and killed Americans in recent time.
But the Left doesn’t even have that much. And yet, they have chosen to double down on this? That’s the equivalent of having 20 and asking the dealer to “hit” you in a game of Blackjack. Only worse, since these people risk losing MORE seats than they will likely lose in November.
As a summary, these are the things the Left’s agenda seems to be: Re-nuke North Korea, reenter Iran nuke deal, raise your taxes, make you unemployed again, take away your guns, force your wife and daughter to use the same restroom as a grown man, betray Israel, support Hamas, rebuild ISIS, bring in more illegals, support MS-13, take away your free speech, force you to pay for Planned Parenthood, destroy the NRA, spy on conservatives and impeach Trump and Pence if possible based on no evidence whatsoever.
And they think a blue wave is coming?
“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I don’t usually start things off by calling people morons, but I’ll make an exception here. Representative William Lacy Clay Jr. (D-MO) was present at a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday held by Democrats.
At this press conference, Clay said: “Let’s not fool each other. We know what this is. This is the Trump administration’s American version of ethnic cleansing in order to blur the lines of accuracy in the Census. That’s what this question is about.”
And that’s not all: “That’s what the motivation is,” Clay continued. “This is to have an inaccurate Census so that they can continue denying the fact that this country is becoming more browner and blacker.”
Just listen to this fool talk! Are you kidding me?! Of course, it’s no surprise that Clay also called this act “unconstitutional” even though it’s not.
You know how the Left is always calling us racist? It’s patently obvious that it’s THEM that are racist, particularly since race is all they can ever really focus on.
Let’s take the issue of illegal immigration as a whole. The Left claims that it’s racist against Hispanics. It isn’t. This issue is not about race – it’s about rule of law. But the Left can’t simply let it slide. They HAVE to make it about race, otherwise it’s a no-brainer issue on what is right. They HAVE to make it about race because if they admit it is about rule of law, then they would eventually lose illegal’s votes in the future. And they simply can’t afford to lose any more votes than they already have and are.
So this citizenship question is not at all about race. All it’s asking is whether or not you are an official American citizen. Whether you are a white American, a black American or a Hispanic American is entirely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what your skin color is, what your gender is (even if it’s a made up gender), what your religion is or what your sexuality is, all that question asks is whether or not you are an American citizen.
The only reason the Left is opposed to this is because it exposes just how many non-citizens there are and threatens non-citizens’ ability to vote, since it is illegal for a non-citizen to vote. But since the Democrats rely heavily on illegal votes, they must be opposed to it and call it whatever they must.
But even then, what Clay said is absolutely moronic. In case that idiot doesn’t know, ethnic cleansing is racial genocide. It’s what Hitler did to the Jews. So, if you think about it, that is a relatively anti-Semitic comment as it’s likely offensive to Jewish people. I don’t know, I could be wrong as I am not Jewish, but I could understand if it was offensive to them.
But whether or not it is offensive to Jewish people, what we can all agree on is that Clay’s comment was absolutely ridiculous.
Like I said, ethnic cleansing is racial genocide. Hitler did it to the Jews and Sanger wanted to do it to black people through abortion. I can’t express just how stupid that comment is. Frankly, it’s a dumber comment than NBC’s claim that Trump greeting the former North Korean detainees was “choreographed” and “staged production”.
As dumb as that comment was, it was at least mixed in with bitterness and petty jealousy. Clay’s comment was 100% idiotic.
Not to mention that throughout the history of the world, it’s been Leftists who have exercised or at least sought ethnic cleansing. Add that to the Democrat’s horrid history of racism and slavery, and you really have to wonder who would be foolish enough to still be willing to vote Democrat.
Illegals, that’s who. Not necessarily because they are ignorant but because Democrats are the only people in the country who prioritize those who shouldn’t be here over the ones who are already here and deserve to be.
The Census question will better serve our ability to recognize what percentage of the country’s population is officially American and what percentage is merely a resident of the country. As Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told Breitbart News, the move will result in more accurate unemployment data and a better estimate of the illegal alien population.
“It allows a sovereign nation to know how many citizens it has. That’s the craziest part of our Census since 1950. Now we will have an actual count of citizens. That’s one of the most basic things a sovereign nation should be able to do, along with enforcing its borders.”
Precisely. There really shouldn’t be any issue regarding asking a citizenship question. But since the Democrats require illegal votes to go to them since they are largely disliked by the American people, they have to fight for rights that these people do not have and should never have.
But even then, saying such a question is “ethnic cleansing” is absolutely stupid. I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record saying the same things again and again, but I truly cannot express just how stupid that comment is.
Not only is he racist for believing this issue is all about race and he can only think about people’s race, but he’s also very dumb. I hate calling people that as I believe it doesn’t drive a conversation forward, but there is hardly a conversation to be had about this. No one in their right mind would honestly think a CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION could possibly be considered ethnic cleansing by any stretch of the imagination.
You have to be a lunatic to honestly believe that. Now, is Clay a lunatic? I don’t know. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s just trying to be controversial or make this matter a far bigger and more dangerous deal than it really is, but I’m not certain. By all means, he could just be a massive moron. But I’ll reserve further judgment depending on where something like that goes (not that I expect something like that to stick as a legitimate talking point) and whether or not he continues to call it ethnic cleansing.
“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.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As the gun debate has been going on in recent time, a logical argument made against those calling for gun control is that they themselves are protected by people with guns. Bernie Sanders is protected by people with guns, Chuck Schumer is protected by people with guns, even the March for our Lives event had armed security.
Chelsea Handler also falls under the category of someone who is anti-gun while being under the protection of people with guns. And maybe if she owned a gun herself, she would be a bit more savvy about what a gun even is, because according to a recent tweet, such information is clearly lacking from her brain.
Replying to someone calling her out for being anti-gun while being protected by people with guns, Chelsea said something that may just be up there in terms of stupidest things she’s ever said, and that’s saying something: “My armed guards aren’t killing children and don’t have semi automatic weapons.”
Unless her armed guards are protecting her with bananas, I find that statement to be utterly false and ridiculous. But I think I can understand her line of thinking. In her warped mind, anything that is a semi-automatic weapon is, by default, an “assault rifle”, which is ridiculous because assault rifles are automatic rifles, not semi. AR-15’s are not military-grade weapons because the military doesn’t use AR-15’s. They use M4’s, which are automatic.
But I digress. Returning to Chelsea, her ignorance is ever so clear. Just to clear up any sort of confusion, a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon that automatically loads a new round into the chamber after a bullet leaves the gun, but won’t fire unless the trigger is released and pressed again. An automatic weapon is a weapon that automatically loads a new round into the chamber and fires that round if the trigger is still being pulled.
This knowledge doesn’t even have to come from owning a gun. Even playing any shooter video game will give you this knowledge.
But this is clearly knowledge that is lacking in Chelsea’s brain. And let me tell you, other Twitter users were quick to point out her stupidity.
“You obviously have no idea what a semi-automatic weapon is, and I can guarantee your armed guards carry a semi-automatic,” wrote one user.
“A pistol is a semi-automatic weapon. You obviously know nothing about guns. Automatic weapons have been banned in the U.S. for a long time now buddy. Hate to burst your bubble,” wrote another user.
“Unless they carry revolvers, they have semi-automatic weapons. Even with revolvers, guess what, they fire a shot with each trigger pull, just as a true semi-auto does. In case you aren’t aware, your ignorance is showing. But that’s nothing new, is it?” wrote another. And this person is mostly right. Not when it comes to the revolver. A revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon because you have to cock back the hammer to fire another shot. It doesn’t automatically load another bullet into the chamber because it technically has 6 chambers and cocking back the hammer makes the chambers revolve into the correct placement to fire the next shot, hence the name “revolver”.
But he is right that she tends to show her ignorance. Earlier in the year, during Martin Luther King Jr. day, she shared this tweet: “Happy Martin Luther King day to a true hero. This day means more today than it ever has. We all must honor the spirit of his fairness and equality and tireless search for justice. It is up to white people to honor Dr. King, and to think about what it must be like to not be white.”
I had even written an article surrounding the insanely stupid tweet and I said that Chelsea was in the lead for the “single stupidest tweet of 2018” award. I don’t know if this tweet trumps that other one. If anything, this tweet highlights her true racist nature and the other one simply highlights her insane ignorance towards… anything, really.
Now, I’ve addressed the stupidity portion of her tweet. But there’s another part of it that should also be addressed. The first portion, saying her armed guards don’t kill children.
As with everything, context is key. Chelsea wrote that tweet in reply to this one: “You truly are ignorant of our Constitution and what it stands for. Get rid of your armed guards then you can talk to the Middle Class about [feeling] safe. It’s children killing children there lies the problem. The home, the schools miss the signs not the Constitution.”
Let’s reread Chelsea’s tweet: “My armed guards aren’t killing children…” That’s the important bit that I want to focus on. What is she insinuating here? That Middle Class families do kill children? That those who respect and follow the Constitution kill children? That people who want to defend the 2nd Amendment kill children?
I know that’s what every other Leftist claims about Dana Loesch and other gun owners, so it would make sense for Chelsea to follow that line of thinking.
In her defense for not getting rid of her armed guards, she says that they aren’t the ones killing children. Which is also rather hypocritical because people gun owners defend their right to own guns by saying that they themselves aren’t the ones killing children. Her very reason to keep her armed security is the very reason WE WANT TO KEEP OUR GUNS!
And with her defense of her armed guards, she makes the insinuation that those who choose to keep their guns and defend their right to keep guns are responsible, if only in part, for the deaths of all children who are killed by people with guns.
Not only does she entirely miss the point that the other user was making, that guns aren’t the ones killing children but that children are the ones killing children (going by the argument that people kill people), which is something the Left automatically rejects anyway, but she also makes, even if subconsciously, the claim that those who want to keep their guns are the ones who are responsible for gun deaths in the country.
The ones responsible for children dying.
I believe that is the main reason she wrote that tweet. Both to defend her use of armed guards and blaming people who defend the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
I could be reading too much into that, but that’s what stuck out to me (aside from the sheer stupidity of the latter portion of the tweet) when rereading the tweet. What reason could she have for saying that her armed guards aren’t killing children? Of course they aren’t! Neither are LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS!
Now, I don’t expect her to even be able to recognize the stupid part of her tweet, much less the hypocritical and condemning part of it. But one can only hope and pray that these people wake up to their idiocy and evil.
That tweet contained both.
“He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s neither shocking nor surprising to know that college students tend to be liberal. After all, they’ve been indoctrinated by liberal teachers for years and become even more influenced as they attend college. But one particular university has INSANELY liberal students, it seems.
According to Campus Reform: “Members of the University of Pittsburgh’s Fossil-Free Coalition and United Students Against Sweatshops presented a list of 15 demands to Chancellor Patrick Gallagher during a Friday protest.”
According to the demand list addressed to the Chancellor: “Chancellor Gallagher, in the political climate we’re forced to inhabit, our University cannot stay silent on issues that affect our community. To do so would be to stand in opposition to those of us in the Pittsburgh community that are vulnerable to classism, racism, gender-related violence. We demand you take action by the 2018-2019 school year.”
Yeah, I’m gonna have a hard time taking these kids seriously when they say they are “vulnerable to classism, racism, gender-related violence.” If you can’t take the fact that someone has more money than you do, I suggest you grow a pair and learn to deal with it. About racism, isn’t it interesting that they say they have to deal with racism? Isn’t a college campus usually very liberal? Or at least somewhat liberal? I thought liberals weren’t racist. But they are saying they still have to deal with it, so what gives? And finally, let’s address the “gender-related violence”. If you’re talking about a guy hitting a girl, then yes, that should be addressed because no man can call himself a man if he hits a woman.
But if you classify “mean words” as “violence”, then I suggest you follow my advice about dealing with classism: DEAL WITH IT! People can be jerks and insanely ignorant. Don’t let them get to you. If someone says something mean to you, then that just tells you more about the character of the other person than that of yourself. Mean words don’t constitute violence. Violent people cause violence, but words don’t constitute violence on their own.
Boy, I’m already going at them without even reading the demands! Ok, let’s see what the irrational snowflakes want.
Here’s the list of demands the students made to Chancellor Gallagher:
I don’t think this is a list of demands. I think this is “How To Completely Destroy A University In 15 Easy Steps”. Seriously, I don’t think any of the students in those activist groups are a Finance Major. If any of them knew how economics actually worked, they’d know why the combination of all of their financial demands would absolutely bankrupt the university.
But that’s precisely what I mean when I say that college students have kicked liberalism into overdrive. Aside from the issue of abortion and free healthcare, that’s basically everything liberals have been wanting for ages. It’s a list of Leftist ideals!
I honestly think these students want to bankrupt the University of Pittsburgh. None of their financial demands would work out. What does that say about the University's curricula? What a complete failure!
But even beyond the financial demands, there’s also the flat-out INSANE demands. “Gender neutral bathrooms”. I think we all know exactly why that wouldn’t work. If you thought the amount of rape stories in college campuses is bad, gender-neutral bathrooms would simply increase the amount of rape happening there.
“Diversifying the student body, investing in cultural organizations” Oh, you mean like Black Lives Matter and Antifa? You want the University of Pittsburgh to help fund those organizations? Don’t get me wrong, if the University of Pittsburgh is liberal, then I think they’re already helping, in one way or another, to fund those organizations with tax payer dollars. But they want the University to do this directly?
And perhaps the most INSANE demand of them all: “That all campus cops are disarmed and that city cops are banned from campus.” Ok, at this point I think they don’t just want the college to go bankrupt, I think they want people to die as well.
Did they forget the fact that cops are pretty much the only people there with guns? If there’s a shooter, the college cops are unarmed and city cops are banned, the University of Pittsburgh would be a graveyard!
Do you remember the Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon in 2015? I remember that particular instance because of the fact that people had to LOOK FOR COPS TO HELP THEM! They needed good guys with guns because a bad guy with a gun was killing people (hunting Christians, according to Wikipedia) and no one else around had a gun.
So what do you think would happen if there’s a similar shooter, college cops aren’t armed and city cops are banned? It would be a blood bath. But, at that, the chances of a shooting at any particular school aren’t that high. So let’s, for now, ignore the fact that they would become an easy target for any madman with a gun. Instead, let’s focus on more regular violence.
By disarming cops, you’re limiting their abilities to do their jobs to uphold the peace and employ justice. If they have their hands tied behind their backs, violence in the campus will naturally go up. Remember Charlottesville? The violence could’ve almost completely been avoided if cops had been allowed to do their jobs.
But they were given orders to stand down and it led to violence erupting in the once-peaceful streets of Charlottesville, presented to you by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, and the eventual death of a person. No one had to die that day. No one had to be hurt.
The same could very well happen in the University of Pittsburgh. I just hope these kids learn that everything they demand cannot happen, and some simply SHOULDN’T happen. And I certainly hope they learn just why the things they demand would never work out.
“Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
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...