Imagine that you have a neighbor that lives all alone and is so sick that they can’t take care for themselves and you volunteer to take care of them until they get better. In order to do so, you leave your family behind for a few days and you have to spend night after night in your neighbor’s home, making sure he or she takes their medicine, and that their temperature doesn’t go up too much. In the process, you’ve consumed electricity and some food that your neighbor had in his/her house.
Now your neighbor is doing much better and you’re ready to go back home to continue taking care of your family. Before you leave your neighbor’s home, he/she hands a bill over to you with all that you consumed during the time you spent there, that they expect you to pay: electricity, cereal, milk, bread, etc plus rent. You are shocked, because you left your own family and didn’t take care of them just to take care of your neighbor, and THIS is the thanks you get?
That’s what’s happening to the hundreds of volunteer health care workers who left their families to go to New York to help the State and its COVID-19 patients during this pandemic.
You see, Governor Andrew Cuomo has said that volunteer health care workers who traveled to NY to help his people out will have to pay State Income Tax there for as long as they were in the State doing their jobs. Here’s what he said during his Tuesday news conference:
"We're not in a position to provide any subsidies right now because we have a $13 billion deficit […] If we don't get more money from Washington, we can't fund schools, right, so at the rate we want to fund them. We are in dire financial need".
The issue first came up when the temporary hospital in Central Park was being erected by Samaritan’s Purse, a humanitarian aid organization led by Franklin Graham:
"Our financial comptroller called me, and he said, 'Do you know that all of you are going to be liable for New York state income tax?'" said Ken Isaacs, a Vice President for Samaritan's Purse. "I said, 'What?' [The comptroller] said, 'Yeah, there's a law. If you work in New York State for more than 14 days, you have to pay state income tax.' I didn't know that."
Isaacs said he’s actually more concerned by the paperwork that will go into paying those taxes:
"I think that once that's unleashed...once you start filing that, you have to do that for like a whole year or something," he said.
According to a partner at accounting firm Spielman, Koenigsberg & Parker, LLP, entities from "these other states will have to register in New York and do withholding here in New York."
Any out-of-state resident who's come to New York to work on Coronavirus relief is subject to the tax after 14 days, just like any other worker in New York who goes to the State to work on anything else. The tragedy here is that all these people were moved by compassion and did what they felt was right to help their fellow Americans…and THIS is the thanks they get?
Not only that, it was Cuomo himself who ASKED for help from all of these people. So did New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. They both asked for help. Imagine that! Many of these health care workers are collecting paychecks from companies back in their home states, which allowed them to go to New York to volunteer, and now they're obligated to pay State Income Tax...
The insanity of this is unbelievable. Who in their right mind would go to New York to help the next time something like this happens? The people of New York are mostly liberals who elect people like Cuomo, who has the highest Coronavirus mortality rate IN THE NATION. The governor has caused more deaths than needed, and now he wants to collect income tax from the very people he BEGGED for help? Why would anyone want to do this again in the future? Particularly if New York INSISTS on electing corrupt and incompetent people like De Blasio or Cuomo? The 13 Billion Deficit was NOT created by COVID-19 – this deficit was built up by years of incompetent management by Cuomo himself.
I won’t EVER go to New York for as long as this insanity continues. After all, Cuomo himself said conservatives are not welcome in New York a few years ago. Why pay them to be insulted like this?
“By justice a king builds up the land, but he who exacts gifts tears it down.”
It is safe to say that our current political climate has gone well-beyond toxic and entered the realm of violence. Not only are you not allowed to think a certain way, you will be punished for thinking a certain way. Anyone who utters a conservative thought, who dons a MAGA hat, who openly supports this country or their local GOP candidate is considered less than human, and thus, expendable.
Though we have not quite gotten to the point where we are outright killing each other Civil War-style, that certainly seems to be the direction we’re headed. Tensions aren’t being de-escalated, and it certainly doesn’t help that nut-jobs like Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters and many in the MSM, particularly CNN, encourage this violent behavior against the Right.
But here’s the thing: these Leftists, as unhinged, dangerous and evil as they might be, are also huge cowards.
Allow me to elaborate. One particular trend I’ve noticed as of late is that whenever there is violent confrontation between Leftists and Right-wingers, the Left had some sort of advantage. Be it strength in numbers, strength in weaponry, or simply physical strength against someone who is of the fairer sex.
Breitbart News has documented 603 acts of violence and/or harassment that the media has approved of thus far. But you can add another 2 to that list, since in Nevada, a Leftist operative of a Soros-funded organization physically assaulted the female Republican campaign manager for GOP gubernatorial nominee Adam Laxalt. According to the Daily Wire, this is the nut-job’s second time being arrested for assaulting a Republican woman.
The second would be a small Antifa group in Portland, OR, where I used to live, harassing and verbally accosting a 9/11 widow until a group of counter-protesters, some of whom were larger men than the “man” who accosted the widow, chased the small group away from the woman.
Looking over the rap sheet of acts of violence/harassment, we can see things like: Sen. Susan Collins being sent a letter filled with ricin to her home, a Republican candidate being sucker-punched in a Minnesota restaurant, a FEMALE Republican State Representative being assaulted in Minnesota, a female conservative reporter being threatened with rape by an elderly Leftist man (and feminists defending said man, even though we’re supposed to believe all women), CNN anchor Don Lemon defending the mob that chased Ted Cruz and his family out of a restaurant by saying the mob had the Constitutional right to do that (spoiler alert: they didn’t), and perhaps more prominently, a Leftist protester kicking a pro-life woman.
There are also other things, such as a Leftist attacking a Republican House candidate in Northern California with a switchblade, a Trump supporter being attacked by a punk rocker in one of the rocker’s own shows (and being kept from fighting back by the other attendees), and who could forget the shooting at a Virginia baseball practice that targeted Republicans and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital?
What many of these incidents have in common is that the Leftist attackers have the confidence to attack or harass someone. But when an equal or greater force meets these Leftists, they deflate like a badly baked soufflé. I’m sure you’ve seen some videos of Leftist thugs getting beaten up by counter-protesters. When things get a little too violent and the Left thinks they can take someone on, if they don’t have some sort of advantage, they completely fall apart and retreat.
Because at that point it’s either that or getting their butts kicked.
But the entire thing exposes these two things about the Left: 1) they are evil, otherwise they would never dare harass or attack someone for a petty reason like a political disagreement and 2) they are cowardly, only daring to take action when they feel they have some sort of advantage, be it a weapon, physical dominance over a woman, or strength in numbers.
Whenever we talk about gun control, the Left will always utter taunts like “why do you need a weapon? Are you just not manly enough?” which is especially rich considering that they heavily scrutinize any man that even remotely appears to do something manly, and considering the fact that many on the Left could easily be considered beta males.
But they utter such a taunt because they want to make gun-owners appear to be cowardly, hiding behind a gun. And yet, it is strictly the Left who uses guns to do a shooting. You will never see a conservative shooting up an establishment with the intention of killing Democrats. That’s something only the Left has been documented to do. Why? Because of the previously-listed reasons: they are evil and cowardly.
The Virginia baseball field shooter was reportedly shouting about healthcare. Instead of trying to win elections, he opted to simply exterminate the Republicans in Congress, or at least as many as he could. That is not only evil, but also massively cowardly.
As are the rest of Antifa and anyone who wants to pretend to fight for something worthwhile on the Left (of which there is nothing). They accost Right-wingers whenever they feel they have some sort of advantage. But at the first sign of equal or greater opposition, they become emasculated and retreat.
Now, if this were a war, that’d be understandable. Only someone with a death-wish would willingly throw themselves into a disadvantage. You attack when you feel you have some sort of advantage, for the most part. However, this is not war (yet) and these are not soldiers fighting for their country.
These are children who failed to grow up, at least mentally and emotionally, and pretend to fight fascism all-the-while employing the exact same tactics the Fascist black-shirts and the Nazi brown-shirts employed to gain power. These are not soldiers fighting the Taliban. These are children fighting law-abiding citizens who disagree with them. People who are simply trying to enjoy a meal, or walk down the street, or express their beliefs.
These are people that think they are expressing their beliefs by acting in the way they do. People who simultaneously deny others their right to free speech if that speech is different from their own.
Earlier, I mentioned Don Lemon saying these mobsters have a Constitutional right to do what they did to Ted Cruz and his family. To quote, here’s what he said: “… But that doesn’t mean that people don’t get to object. That’s your right as an American to object. It’s covered in the First Amendment… In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it in a restaurant, that you can’t do it on a football field. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it on a cable news – you can do it wherever you want.”
Aside from being a notorious racist, Don Lemon is also a massive moron. You can protest in public areas, but not in private property. You need the permission of the owner to protest in private property. But beyond arguing against such a stupid argument, let me take a step back here. THESE ARE NOT PROTESTERS! THESE ARE RAGE-FILLED MOBS CHASING PEOPLE OUT OF RESTAURANTS!
A peaceful protester will not accost someone. That goes against the definition of a peaceful protest. To call these people anything other than a mob is asinine. And I find it fascinating that Don Lemon thinks these people have the right to do this, but Ted Cruz and his family don’t have the right to enjoy a meal in a restaurant.
But anyway, that’s mostly just a tangent that I really wanted to cover here just to expose Don Lemon as the piece of crap that he is. A racist, a hypocrite and a massive moron.
Returning to the overall point, it becomes clear to anyone with eyes and a functioning brain that these “protesters” are nothing but a mob. That these people are evil and cowardly, only daring to get violent if they feel they have some sort of advantage.
Again, these are not soldiers. These are very privileged children who have yet to face reality. If there ever is another Civil War in this country, it will be a quick one.
“No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me, declares the Lord.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. No hidden fees. What you get it a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Dennis Prager, founder of Prager University, has released tons of videos discussing a multitude of topics. In one of his latest videos (below), he talks about the difference between the Left and Liberalism.
On the outset, you would naturally ask the question: “What is the difference? I thought they were one and the same.” And no one would fault you for believing this. In the video, Dennis Prager takes note of the fact that people think they are the same, but makes sure to dispel that rumor immediately by saying: “… liberalism and leftism have almost nothing in common. But the left has appropriated the word ‘liberal’ so effectively almost everyone – liberals, leftists and conservatives – think they are synonymous. But they’re not.”
Prager then goes on to list 6 examples of the differences between liberalism and leftism:
4. View of America
5. Free Speech
6. Western Civilization
Again, from the outset, one would naturally believe that Leftists and liberals all agree with regard to every one of these examples, but Prager makes sure to note the particular differences.
Let’s go in order.
Race: According to Prager, “The liberal position on race has always been a) the color of a person’s skin is insignificant and b) those who believe race is significant are racists. Meanwhile, the left believes the very opposite. To the left, it’s the liberal attitude toward race – it’s unimportant – that is racist… liberals have always been passionately committed to racial integration, while the left is increasingly committed to racial segregation – such as all-black dormitories and separate black graduations at universities.”
One great example of this racial segregation is the hype the movie “Black Panther” received coming up to and during its actual premiere. The movie, which featured an almost all black cast and crew, was celebrated as an achievement for black people. Despite the fact that black people have been featured in movies for decades, have STARRED in movies for decades and there are a slew of black actors, directors and others, this is somehow seen as a great achievement for black people. Why? Because there are almost no white people in it.
They might as well consider pre-Civil Rights Act America as an achievement for black people since they would go to all-black schools that held no white people at all back then.
This is the kind of racial segregation that Prager is talking about. And frankly, it’s no different today than it was back then. The only difference is that the Left has somehow managed to convince black people to willingly segregate themselves from white people. I guess if these Leftists couldn’t win with legislation, they would have to win with psychology.
Meanwhile, in a liberal’s eyes, skin color doesn’t matter. Now, it’s difficult in today’s day and age to find a self-described liberal who doesn’t think skin color matters at all. As Prager noted, the Left has successfully appropriated the term to the point there is almost no discernible distinction. However, I honestly believe there is.
Why? Because it’s no secret that many people who voted for Donald Trump were once long-time Democrat voters. THOSE people you can consider liberal, not Leftist. It’s those people who would not necessarily call themselves Republicans or switch party affiliation, but who would not follow the Democrat Party anymore and have found Trump to be, in their eyes, the prototypical liberal (despite the fact that he’s pretty much a conservative now).
And the best part is that, when it comes to these liberals, it becomes increasingly simple to convince them to become conservatives, because at that point, they basically are what you could describe as a “conservative liberal”, or someone who would use the old definition of liberal (or the actual one) to say they are not socialists, just not Right-wing-leaning either.
And when it comes to the issue of race, conservatives and liberals are on the same boat.
Let’s move on to capitalism. Prager says: “Liberals have always been pro-capitalism, because liberals are committed to free enterprise and because they know capitalism is the only way to lift great numbers of people out of poverty. It is true that liberals want government to play a bigger role in the economy than conservatives do, but liberals never opposed capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are left-wing values.”
I don’t know if you have noticed, but in nearly all of my articles in this website, I never refer to any elected Democrat or Democrat candidate as a liberal. I always use the term Leftist. However, the reason for this is not because of the distinction Prager makes, or at least, not entirely. You see, I would refer to elected Democrats and candidates as “Leftists” because they were socialists, yes, but because they were no longer a part of their base. They were now the leaders and drivers of the Leftist agenda. I would consider the Democrat base as liberal, for the most part.
But as Prager notes, that is also erroneous. Why? Because at this point, there are a lot of people in the Democrat base who support socialism, believe race matters and fit into every description of a Leftist that Prager makes in his video (that I will get back to momentarily). There are a lot of millennials who identify as socialists. These people are undoubtedly Leftists. However, there are other millennials who might identify as liberals while not advocating for socialism. They may be few in numbers, but they are most likely there.
Now, I don’t want to make this article too long, so I will summarize the next few points.
When it comes to nationalism, Prager says that liberals are pro-America and want to protect it and its borders. That they feel patriotic about our nation while also acknowledging its imperfections, which is understandable. On the other hand, Lefitsts are anti-America, don’t like it one bit, and think it’s racist, sexist, homophobic and everything bad in this world.
When it comes to the Left's view of America, it’s basically the same stance as nationalism. They do not like it and think it’s oppressive, imperialistic and horrible, while liberals “have always venerated America”, given that old movies and comics made by liberals were patriotic. He even brings up Superman and his old slogan of: “Truth, Justice, and the American way,” and how the Left has utterly dropped that slogan and essentially made Superman a citizen of Earth, not America.
In regard to free speech, I think the distinction is fairly obvious. Liberals are pro-free speech, while Leftists only like free speech that agrees with them and is not what they consider to be “hate speech”. In other words, the Left is anti-free speech. They and only they are allowed to give their opinions, no one else is allowed to disagree with them, and those that do are considered hateful and should not be able to speak any longer. Ironically, this can also get these very same idiots into trouble, such as when Wil Wheaton was driven off of social media by the very SJW culture he is a part of.
Finally, when it comes to Western Civilization, it’s similar to the Left’s view on America and nationalism. They consider Western civilization to be as bad as any other one and that it’s basically a euphemism for “white supremacy”. Prager brings up the point that FDR, Democrats’ favorite President, stood for Western and even “Christian” civilization but the same Leftists denounced Trump when he stood for Western civilization in his speech in Warsaw.
Prager even quotes Alan Derschowitz, a liberal professor from Harvard, who said: “As a liberal, as an American, and as a Jew… I far more fear the Left than the Right.”
It’s worth mentioning that Derschowitz is a staunch Trump supporter and the very definition of a liberal as described in the PragerU video. But why did Prager quote that in particular? Because he says that “[liberals] have been taught all their lives to fear the right.” This is his answer to the question of why, if liberalism and Leftism are so different, liberals don’t just oppose Leftism.
And I think it’s a fairly good answer. But here’s the thing: I think Trump’s emergence and the Left’s response to it have essentially forced liberals to oppose Leftism more openly.
I think we ARE seeing liberals opposing Leftism with their unending support of Donald Trump and what he’s doing for this country. They were opposing Leftism by simply voting for him, but due to the Left’s near-nuclear response to Trump’s election and success post-election, liberals are coming more and more to his aide. They want to make sure Trump stays in office as long as allowed by the Constitution and that no one is capable of overriding their vote.
So it’s for all of these reasons, both the ones in the video and that explanation in the paragraph above, that I believe more and more people will switch over to conservatism. If these liberals are as patriotic as they are, as pro-America as they are, as pro-capitalist, they would immediately see that they have just about everything in common with conservatives.
Now, Prager does also note the one key difference between conservatives and liberals. He mentions that liberals want the government to be more involved in the economy. This is where conservatives disagree with liberals. But 1) I’d much rather have that one little disagreement with people than have to hammer into their brains why socialism is unbelievably stupid and 2) it’s easier to convince people why the government should not be so involved in the economy. Again, it’s more likely these liberals will become conservatives because, considering just about every other description in the video, that’s what they basically are.
The Left has caused such a great divide in our nation that we can’t even agree that THE CIVILIZATION THAT HAS MADE THE WORLD BETTER is actually a good one. That Western civilization is good for the world given our innovation and advancements in technology. We can’t even agree that America was ever great for crying out loud!
At this point, any liberal that loves America is effectively a conservative. Not because they switched parties or values but because what lies farther left is a pit of undiluted and unending misery, not just the misery that socialism brings, but the misery of believing everything is horrible and unjust.
Leftists are incapable of experiencing joy. Liberals can. THAT, I suppose, is the biggest difference between the two.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
And before you head out, please make sure to subscribe to our free weekly newsletter. You’ll find that everything we cover in the newsletter is pro-America, pro-Capitalism and everything that describes a liberal according to Prager (except for government involvement in the economy. That part is conservative). And since it’s completely free, you do not have to pay a single cent. Unlike those exorbitant prices at socialist gatherings, and unlike the redistribution of wealth, you don’t have to pay anything at the outset or during tax season.
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.”
Comedy titan Mel Brooks said in an interview with BBC 4 recently that political correctness is leading to the ‘dead of comedy’. Mel Brooks, best known for comedies such as “Blazing Saddles” and “The Producers” has profited from political incorrectness for more than 50 years. This is a man who has taken risks, and succeeded, in satirizing racism.
Brooks said ‘We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy […] It’s not good for comedy’. He added. ‘Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks. Comedy is the lecherous little elf whispering in the king’s ear, always telling the truth about human behavior.’
Brooks is not the only comedian to speak up against political correctness. Not long ago Jerry Seinfeld complained about how political correctness is hurting humor too.
In a world where snowflakes cannot conceive the idea of sharing a college campus with students who don’t agree with their liberal viewpoints, the fact that a Hollywood legend like Brooks – hardly a conservative – is speaking out against political correctness is certainly refreshing.
We’re becoming a country where you can’t tell a joke of why the chicken crossed the road without a group of snowflakes complaining about your insensitivity towards chickens and how hard it is for them to cross a road! Next thing you know, college authorities form ‘Chicken Rights’ offices, create ‘Sensitivity Towards Chickens’ lectures and fire any college professor who dares tell a joke about the oppressed bird…
It’s ridiculous, I know. But that’s who we’re becoming.
We are raising an entire generation of people who have no idea how to deal with opposing views, debate in a civil manner and live in a world where Kim Jong Un massacres his own people and threatens the rest of us. They complain about WORDS when they should start figuring out how to STOP GENOCIDE.
These snowflakes will be eaten alive by the few millennials who were not raised this way. Sink or swim, as they say – they will sink.
Obviously, it’s all by design – there’s nothing the Left wants more than having more people dependent on government. Slaves who will vote them into office without the need of violence. Like Hugo Chavez was voted into office so many times by the very people he and his Leftist friends indoctrinated.
Comedy, much like any other talent, is a GOD GIVEN talent. People like Mel Brooks have made a fortune by doing what they were created to do. In fact, the JOY that comes from using your talents and making a living from them is a privilege that only a few people are able to realize. Most people live OK lives with jobs they dread. But when you do what God has created you to do, life becomes more joyful.
And yet, the Left is determined to destroy that. The Left is on a mission to make YOU miserable. Not only are you not able to tell jokes or say ‘Merry Christmas’, but you’re also to watch every word you say, exercise self-censorship and scream whenever somebody says something you can claim offended you. The Left is on a mission to ENSLAVE you to whatever THEY say you should FEEL and THINK.
You have a talent for jokes? You better use it against Trump!
You have a talent for music? You better use it against Trump!
You have a talent for writing? You better use it against Trump!
The truth is political correctness is not just killing comedy – it’s killing free speech. Again, it’s all by design. To the extent you fit in the liberal box the Left wants to put you in, you are fine. But you step outside of it, and they crush you. It’s, obviously, about control.
But don’t be afraid, my friend. The reality is that, whether you believe it or not, only God is in control. God either ordains or allows everything that happens – and He has a reason for everything. If you don’t believe in God, I’m afraid it doesn’t make this statement any less true. God is still in control whether you believe in Him or not.
And God has given these artists gifts. We all have gifts that we should use.
'Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.'
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.”
Charlie Gard, an 11-month old British baby, has been sentenced to die. His only crime? Being too sick. Charlie’s lawyer was APPOINTED – yes! appointed! – by the British government. And you know what? ‘His’ lawyer supports assisted dying. Legally speaking, the lawyer is the guardian of the baby – and he supports euthanasia and is ready to kill Charlie. With friends like these...
You probably have heard of this case: the little boy has a terminal disease and the doctors where he’s hospitalized have decided spending more of the Queen's resources on him is a waste of money, so they want to switch his ventilator off – the machine that keeps the baby alive.
Obviously, these doctors indicate that killing Charlie is in Charlie’s best interest – if you can believe that. But like all arrogant leftists, they don’t speak about killing the baby – they speak about just letting him die ‘with dignity’...
But whose baby is Charlie anyway?
Would you accept my decision as to what to do with your baby? Would you accept a lawyer’s decision or even a doctor’s decision? Opinions? Yes. But DECISIONS? NO WAY!
As you probably know, Charlie has been granted residence in the US should the royal supreme courts in the UK allow him to be transferred to a US hospital for experimental treatment. His parents also have the money to pay for that treatment. Now, the parents have given up and Charlie will be left to die. Why? Because the UK's government determination to KILL THIS BABY has resulted in now being too late to save the little boy. The irony is, should Charlie have been allowed to come to the US, the British hospital wouldn’t have had to spend any more money on Charlie – and he would have been given a chance to live.
But did Charlie’s doctors agree with this strategy?
Nooooo! They’re way too arrogant! They want this boy DEAD!
Can you imagine the INTERNATIONAL embarrassment they’d be put through should the treatment in the US have been successful? These doctors have reputations to protect! Although, in my book, that ship has sailed…
How about the UK Supreme courts? Do the Judges agree?
So far, judges have been eager to KILL this baby because, let’s face it, they’re arrogant too!
Big government tends to think they own you – you and your children. There is not one leftist out there who doesn’t think the government should be allowed to kill you – whether it’s the communist regime in North Korea, which kills the opposition, or a more ‘civil’ socialist government like in the UK, which is certain it’s their right to STOP your child from accessing healthcare in the US so that he might live.
Big government spits in your face: ‘so you want to live? You want to go to the US and save yourself or your child? NO WAY! You’ll die because I say so’.
What these doctors and judges should have said is this: ‘we’re sorry we can't help you, Charlie, but if your parents want to give you another chance, please go to the US, angel, and we’ll pray for you’. THAT is the attitude they should have – after all, Charlie is one of their own…
Why do these doctors and judges do these things? Where is all of this coming from?
Evil, that’s where it’s coming from.
Loving individuals HELP people, particularly INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Anyone who wants to KILL CHILDREN is EVIL, pure and simple. There is no other possible explanation.
Now, this is nothing new – and let’s not forget that in America alone more than 55 million babies have been killed since Roe v Wade. This is, of course, evil too. So let's not pretend we're awesome, because we're not.
But evil has targeted children for thousands of years – since Moses! In the Bible, Pharaoh instructed midwives to kill all male newborns, but Moses' mom put him in a basket on a river to save his life. And Herod, during Jesus’ time, ordered the killing of all male children in Bethlehem who were two years old or under, because he wanted to kill baby Jesus. So as you can see, children are a KEY TARGET of evil.
And Charlie’s a problem of big government, which is always evil. In my mind, only the parents have the right to decide what’s best for their child. Dying is in nobody’s best interest, no matter how badly the left attempts to sugarcoat it.
If Charlie had been allowed to come to the US for therapy, what’s the worst that could have happened? He could have died, but at least, the parents and doctors would have done EVERYTHING within their power to save him – which is every doctor’s and parent’s obligation. Right now, nobody with decision making power in the UK, aside from his parents, has had any interest in saving this boy.
Why do citizens allow governments to own their own children? At which point are citizens in the UK and everywhere in the world where these things happen going to STOP and THINK how much FREEDOM they’re allowing their big governments to take away? What will it take for the rest of us to realize there’s still right and wrong in this world and that the government should NOT be allowed to make YOUR DECISIONS, particularly LIFE AND DEATH decisions?
Obamacare was DESIGNED to do exactly this: put your life and death decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. Look at Charlie – this is your child under Obamacare. This is YOU when you get too old and the system needs to ration healthcare as the UK is doing in Charlie’s case. This is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE at work!
But it all starts by delegating TOO MUCH OF OUR POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Charlie’s problem is socialized medicine.
Whose baby is it anyway?
The UK government’s…
God save the Queen…
Let's pray for Charlie and for people around the world to identify the evil around us...and FIGHT it.
‘Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.’
While accepting an award presented by Planned Parenthood, former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton cited a Hulu production to back up her views on abortion. No, I’m not kidding – she actually cited Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale…I suppose this is how democrats back up all their theories…on novels…
But apart from the infantilism demonstrated by the former presidential candidate – infantilism that permeates the hearts and souls of every democrat, I must add – the argument that abortion is morally higher than life is an outrage.
‘[…] anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this [abortion] is an issue of morality. I wish it were common ground, but I know for sure it is higher ground’
You bet abortion is an issue of morality - one that the Church should go after with full force.
In any case it’s hard to say whether Hillary’s position on abortion is based on her own convictions or on Planned Parenthood’s $38 million donation to her 2016 campaign. I personally think she will say and do anything for money and has no convictions – let’s not forget why her nickname ‘crooked Hillary’ was so widely popular during the campaign.
The democrat party has now become the party of abortion. In fact, DNC chair Tom Perez recently announced that his party’s commitment to abortion is ‘not negotiable’ and the party would never again support pro-life democrat candidates for office.
Yes, my friend – it’s hard to be a pro-life democrat these days. But then again, if you’re pro-life, then you cannot be a democrat…
The problem with democrats and their ‘higher morality’ is that they want to impose their morality on the rest of us. Since nobody on this planet is 100% moral and ethical, when you have a group of people wanting to impose their morality on you, it inevitably leads to tyranny.
Man cannot create morality – only God can.
The Nuremberg trials after WWII are a great example of what I mean. As you probably know, the Nazi leaders were brought to trial and charged with genocide and war crimes. After all they had massacred 6 million Jews. But, you see, the Nazi laws had declared Jews as ‘non-persons’. In other words, much like abortionists have declared unborn children ‘non persons’, Nazis did the same in Nazi Germany with respect to Jewish people. Obviously the end result was the 6 million dead Jews – or the 58 million massacred unborn children here in America. Nazi leaders’ defense was:
'What are you talking about? We have done nothing wrong. We have acted according to our own culture, according to our own morals and in perfect compliance with our own laws. We were told that Jews could be killed, so we killed them!. Who are you to come here now, from another culture, another society and impose your morals on us?’
Interesting defense, don’t you think?
And that’s because nobody can impose their morals on other people, like democrats are trying to do.
Only God can impose morals on us.
The extermination of an entire human race is wrong based on Christian values - not, Nazi law. Hitler gave the green light, but God says 'YOU SHALL NOT KILL'.
Nazis didn’t have the right to kill Jews any more than jihadists have the right to behead you – or any more than abortionists have the right to kill babies.
Christianity and the Bible are the foundation of a free society. You cannot have the government create morals because people, including people in government, are fundamentally immoral. In fact…
…there are NO MORALS if there is NO GOD
The extreme case these days where government dictates your morals is North Korea – Kim Jong Un has killed nearly 500 people in his short term in office, including members of his own family. He’s the epitome of evil because he doesn’t believe in a superior power who one day will judge him. If he did, he’d be a lot nicer.
When you know God will one day judge you, all of a sudden killing people, including, of course, infants, is a no-no.
Hillary and the democrat party obviously don’t think they’ll be judged by God one day. Today, they’re the party of abortion. Tomorrow they’ll be the party of killing the sick, or the old, or the black – wait, they once were the party of killing black people. The KKK was FOUNDED by democrats…
Friend, don’t let the moral relativism of the democrat party fool you. There’s only one truth. There’s only one moral code – and that’s the Bible.
Moral relativism causes people to create their own ‘values’. But it’s dangerous because your own values lead to Hitler or Kim Jong Un.
You see, Hillary believes there is no God. I believe there is – and He’s going to judge us all one day. Hillary and I cannot BOTH be right – only one of us is. What side are YOU on?
2 Timothy 2:15
‘Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth’
The news about Fox News Channel letting Bill O’Reilly go shocked the anchor’s followers last week – but it was also a reminder of the left’s modus operandi and most important weapon: CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.
As we all know, the Left is in a permanent state of war against freedom lovers and Christianity – and they HATE President Trump. They run fake stories about how Trump’s supporters are abandoning him – and if you’re a Trump supporter you’re probably still going down on your knees every single night before you go to bed thanking God for preventing Hillary from winning the 2016 presidential election.
Nothing to see here – Trump supporters are still very much behind him.
Since the left cannot beat Trump himself at the moment, they go after anyone on the right and in his administration. Not long ago they were talking about how Steve Bannon was set to leave the administration and how irrelevant he had become. The last time I checked, Mr. Bannon was still Trump’s Chief Political Strategist.
Now the allegations that the New York Times exposed about Bill O’Reilly supposedly paying five women to keep quiet about his alleged sexual harassment is nothing but a personal attack on anything that moves on the right. The NYT is quick to pass judgment on O’Reilly (and so is Fox News), but God forbid they even hint at the possibility that Bill Clinton is truly a sexual predator.
See, the Left isn’t in and of itself opposed to sexual predators – as long as those predators are leftists, it’s all fine and dandy. What the Left wants is to WIN this COLD WAR against FREEDOM and CHRISTIANITY. They don’t care about morals. They don’t care about women – if they did, Bill Clinton would be in prison by now.
This is CHARACTER ASSASSINATION: they will go after anybody who seems either close or neutral to Trump. The Left wants UNANIMOUS, no-questions-asked following. They want TOTAL SUBMISSION – also known as COMMUNISM. They want to control you and in order to control you, they have to destroy anybody and anything that supports freedom, such as Christians and Conservatives.
Whether or not Bill O’Reilly really is a predator is not the point I’m trying to make here – I don’t know him and I don’t know whether these women are paid by the Left (quite likely) or simply lying or if they're telling the truth. In any case, the main objective was to destroy O’Reilly’s reputation. The truth isn’t relevant – it’s the STORY that matters.
Over the 20 years he was on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly did some wonderful things – from pushing for Kate’s law to mediating in the release of an American young man in a Mexican prison. If the Left succeeds, none of this will ever be remembered.
One thing I’ve always criticized about O'Reilly, though, is when he selected a Muslim actor to play Jesus in his ‘Killing Jesus’ movie. I thought he chose a Muslim with the purpose to come across as open-minded – money, perhaps, being the main driver.
Why would I object to having a Muslim playing Jesus?
Because in order to play any character, you must understand him. And in order to understand Jesus you HAVE to be a Christian – there is no way that you can understand His suffering on the cross or the mission He had to SAVE US unless you’re a Christian.
Actors like to get into character by studying and understanding what their character is going through. Good actors try to FEEL and THINK like the character. If you’re playing Jesus and you FEEL and THINK like Jesus, there is no way that you can NOT become a Christian. If you GET Jesus, you become a Christian. In other words, either the Muslim actor converted to Christianity after understanding Jesus, or he's still a Muslim and consequently didn't portray Jesus accurately.
In my mind, the choice of that particular actor was not based on what was best for the production, but rather on what was politically correct – something that goes against O’Reilly’s ‘no spin’ style…
Character assassination, by the way, is what was used to accuse Jesus. If you recall, Jesus was accused not of being theologically wrong – as a rabbi (a teacher), He was teaching the exact Word of God. Jesus, my friend, was accused to plot against the Roman Empire – a POLITICAL charge, which obviously wasn’t true.
Pontius Pilate examined the evidence – or lack thereof – and interrogated Jesus. When he was done, Pilate said of Jesus ‘I find no fault in him’. To put things into perspective, Pilate was a BRUTAL DICTATOR, even by Roman standards. Roman officers themselves were worried about the brutality of this man. And this very vicious dictator found NO FAULT in Jesus – and yet, Jesus was crucified.
Evil has been using character assassination since the beginning of times. We shouldn’t be surprised. But we should recognize it as soon as we see it. President Ronald Reagan used to call the Soviet Union ‘the evil empire’. And that’s because communism is evil. The LEFT is evil EVERYWHERE – you should be on the alert.
‘So Pilate asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”’
When you think about the creation of this country, we often think about the first settlers and the Revolutionary War. But we often overlook the fact that people had to travel and expand in order to found what would now be the rest of the United States.
These people expanded south to push back against the Conquistadors of Spain and expanded West to beat out everyone else. The Louisiana territory belonged to France until 1803 when it was purchased by the established nation of the United States. As a result, America began to expand westward, while continuing to fight the Spaniards as well.
California was founded after being seceded to the U.S. from Mexico in 1848. And was made into a state in 1850 mostly because of the Gold Rush (1848-1855).
So as you can see, California’s very foundational origin is that of GREED.
California is perhaps the most liberal state in the entire country. I say perhaps because Hawaii is also incredibly liberal, but California often makes the most noise due to the fact that they have Hollywood. And since it’s arguably the most liberal state of all, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that its very origin is that of one of the seven deadly sins.
Now, California has had some good times in the eyes of the Lord. The latest documented religious revival in America actually originates from San Francisco, one of the most liberal cities in the country.
That’s where the “Jesus Movement” originated as a result to the hippie era that was flooding the country. (I just hope we’ll have something similar to respond to the millennial era.)
California was also Ronald Reagan’s state as governor, and thus helped him win both elections (1980 and 1984).
So it’s clear that California has done right in the eyes of God, but that is well in the past. Today’s California is very nearly the exact opposite of Yesterday’s California. San Francisco, the birthplace of the Jesus Movement, is largely known for being the city with the largest gay population in the country as of 2015, with 6.2% of the population of the San Francisco Metro area identifying as gay. Homosexuality and, generally speaking fornication, are sins. If you don't like this truth, don't tell me, take it to God...
And let’s not forget the damage Hollywood often does. What with having two Disney movies in the last two years having a gay character. (Finding Dory: had a lesbian couple. Beauty and the Beast: Gaston’s sidekick is gay - although there’s only one scene just before the credits roll that shows him dancing with another man).
That’s tame compared to what other filmmakers are doing, what with whole movies being promoted for including a gay black man plot. (Moonlight (2016)).
Let’s look at California as a whole. In 2012, 43.7% of registered voters were Democrats and 29.4% were Republicans. This means that nearly half of an entire state was Democrat in 2012. I’m also accounting for the fact that there are people that are not registered to vote either because of age or because they’re foreigners or because they just don’t want to register to vote.
Now, the thing is that, when looking at the 2016 electoral map, we see that California is flooded with red counties, but the most populated places (the coastal cities for the most part) are blue. These are the Los Angeles, San Francisco cities of the state. So even though it’s still largely red, since it’s run by Democrats and the largest places are run by Democrats in and out of office, this state wound up voting for Hillary.
2012 was no different. Most counties in California voted for Romney, but the state went to Obama. Same with 2004. Most of the state was painted red, but the state went to John Kerry. So due to the fact that most of the population lives in the blue areas of the state and that population is largely liberal, a seemingly red state often goes to the Democrat party.
With all of these Democrats, it’s no wonder the state is as insane as it is. It was founded on greed and has moved on to the other deadly sins, mainly lust and pride.
The state was founded on one of the icons of evil in the eyes of God, so it’s no surprise it is so far from God as it is.
And unless there’s a RADICAL change in its political system or there’s another religious revival, this state will continue to go further down into sin.
“My people have become lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; they have gone along from mountain to hill and have forgotten their resting place.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...