It is rare to see a member of the MSM acting not so much like a propagandist and more like an actual journalist, pressing the interviewee with tough, but fair questioning, regardless of the political party the interviewee belongs to.
CNN held a town hall meeting on Wednesday, in which survivors of the most recent school shooting got the chance to ask House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi questions regarding gun control and what her party, as well as the government in general, can and/or will do regarding making schools safer.
Particularly, a female student named Alexis Wilson asked the following: “Where does the government stand on arming and training our teachers, much in the way we use air marshals on airplanes?”
A good and logical question to ask a member of Congress. Pelosi, being the Leftist that she is, simply dismissed the idea, saying that she and her peers “do not think that is the solution”, adding that she does not “support arming teachers and the rest.”
Upon this reply, Chris Cuomo did the unthinkable: he actually CHALLENGED Pelosi’s response and supported the student’s question. “There’s a little bit of an either-or problem with how we’re trying to approach solutions,” said Cuomo.
“The building we’re in now, the building you work in, the point of entry there is secure. You don’t walk in with a trench coat with a shotgun underneath your jacket, and get in. It doesn’t happen, you know this… Why can’t that be part of the equation? Talk about universal background checks, fine. Talk about mental health, how to identify them, money for treatment. But why either-or? Why not make schools safer?”
Pelosi is visibly shaken by the line of questioning and struggles to find a coherent or relevant answer, repeating that she does not believe it is a solution.
While it is always likely Nancy Pelosi will say something dumb, particularly if given the chance to speak for a long time, as the town hall provides, it is rare to see the interviewer issue such a good question that challenges the interviewee, regardless of whether the interviewee is a Democrat or Republican.
We don’t usually see the MSM be tough but fair with Democrats. They usually allow for Democrats to get away with a lot of things (not necessarily always, to their credit) and will usually side with Democrats.
Here, Chris Cuomo seemed more like a real journalist than a propagandist. I will give him credit for that, at least, since pretty much every other time he talks, it’s Leftist propaganda. But in this instance, he did a good job. So much so, in fact, that even NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch praised Cuomo for his job.
“This was a good line of questioning from Chris Cuomo here and he makes a good point about CNN’s security and controlled access points – which I’ve walked through many times.”
It also overall makes a good argument against people who do not believe we should install more security and metal detectors in schools, out of fear of making schools look like prisons.
Regarding this argument, I’ve talked about this before, but I will reiterate my points.
First of all, a school already feels like prison for any student that walks through those doors. Even I, who used to like going to school as a kid, hated going to school once I hit puberty and once I entered high school. It’s something in our hormones that makes us think school is a massive waste of time and we would rather be anywhere else but there. The only reason I was willing to go to school was because of my friends. Aside from that, school felt like prison… except you will likely find far less problems to solve in prison. (Math joke).
So adding security to our schools might make our schools look like prison, but they essentially already are for the students.
Second, because of the type of security at prisons, people don’t just walk in and shoot up the place. It’s a sad realization to see that prisons are hundreds of times more secure than our schools. Not that prisons shouldn’t be secure. Given the criminal element residing in prisons, security is a top priority. But our children should be able to feel just as safe, at least from those who would wish to shoot up the place.
Third, it’s not just our prisons that have high security and metal detectors. Airports also have a lot of security. Government buildings also have a lot of security. The only reason people use prisons to argue against metal detectors and added security is because that has more of an impact than saying “but then schools will feel like airports or government buildings!”
Nevermind the fact that schools ARE government buildings and are somehow less secure than the office of your Congressman or woman.
The argument of “don’t make schools like prisons” is entirely a psychological weapon. One can make the same comparisons to other government buildings, but that would not be anywhere near as impactful. So, those who do not wish to create any real change and solutions that will work use this argument.
Finally, the reason Pelosi and other Democrats don’t want to use this solution is because it is something that will actually help. Part of the reason the Santa Fe high school shooting isn’t made to be a big a deal as Parkland is because the perpetrator didn’t use an AR-15. In fact, there’s nothing remotely legal about what the shooter (whose name I refuse to share so as to not give him the satisfaction) did. He used an illegal gun, which he possessed illegally, and most of all, he committed the illegal action of KILLING people.
Not one single gun control measure or law proposed by any Democrat would’ve prevented the Santa Fe shooting. To be fair, not a single one would’ve also prevented Parkland, but they at least have somewhat of an argument to sell to people there.
In this case, the shooting doesn’t help the Left further their anti-gun agenda, so it’s almost entirely ignored.
And since added security can actually help, it means a reduction in the likelihood of a school shooting happening or being lethal for anyone other than the shooter. Such a result is detrimental to the Left’s anti-gun agenda, so they dismiss it as something that “wouldn’t work”.
It’s not that it wouldn’t work. It’s that it would put Democrats OUT of work. The Left’s ultimate goal, as we already know, is to establish Communism in the United States. That will not be possible if the American people still have their guns. Lenin made sure that people could not revolt against his rule once he established Communism in Russia and became its leader. Hitler took away people’s guns so that they couldn’t fight back against the Nazi’s Socialist rule.
And in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez issued an all-out ban of private gun ownership back in 2012. According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate in 2015 stood at 57.15. Contrast that to the United States’ intentional homicide rate in the same year of 4.88, and you can see precisely how little help the ban in Venezuela was. And, by the way, Venezuela’s intentional homicide rate is only the second highest in the Americas, with El Salvador, which also has some tight gun control laws, being first.
But those numbers are entirely irrelevant to the Left. They don’t honestly care if the world around them is in chaos, so long as they are safe and protected and they still are the ones with all the power. This is the case for the Left wherever you go. In Venezuela, people are starving and dying while Maduro celebrates his “victory” and issues probes into opposing news organizations. In North Korea, the situation is even more dire, with people being forced to clean and organize pictures of North Korea’s former leaders in order to avoid them and their families being sentenced to life in prison.
These are the rules that the Left wants to imitate here in America. What they all have in common, aside from being dictatorial rules of injustice, is that their people cannot rise up against the regimes in revolution. Sure, people are standing up in defiance over the sham elections in Venezuela, but I have little hope that much will come of it. Maduro, unless ousted by the military in a coup, will not leave office any time soon. Even then, the military could simply invoke an even harsher rule, so there is little hope for Venezuela’s rule change.
And that is precisely what the Left in Venezuela wants… and what the Left here wants. Unending rule and power, regardless of how many people will suffer.
To seek any solution other than gun control (which as I’ve said multiple times is not a solution) is a non-starter. Cuomo correctly points out the either-or hypocrisy of the Democrats. They don’t want to make schools safer. They just want to guarantee their own power becomes eternal.
Yet another case of humans trying to be like God.
“Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I tend to enjoy it when disliked and idiotic Democrats hold speeches for the public to hear. Why? Because often enough, the more they speak, the worse they come off. The more they speak, the more likely they are to say something stupid. The more they speak, the more I can have my fun with them.
And with Nancy Pelosi speaking for 8 hours on the House floor trying to defend “Dreamers” and other illegals, I can’t help but to smile at the gift she’s bestowed Republican candidates running for Congress this Fall.
I obviously won’t get into too much detail about her speech. There’s no way I could cover 8 hours of idiocy without going insane, much less without going over my personal word limit for these articles. But her theme is easy to recognize. She was defending illegals and even THANKING them for coming here illegally and having children here.
At the House floor, according to the Daily Wire: “Pelosi vowed to stand and speak until Republicans gave in to her demands to protect illegal aliens who were brought to the United States by their parents as minors. However, Pelosi’s speech appears to have deepened the fracture in the Democratic Party over the issue of immigration.”
Now, it’s one thing for the Daily Wire to be saying this. But it’s an entirely different thing for DEMOCRATS to be saying something similar.
The Daily Wire writes: “Politico interviewed almost a dozen House Democrats, several of whom only spoke on the condition of anonimity… Many agreed that she was trying to ‘shore up support within the progressive base’ who feel Democrats have failed to do enough to protect Dreamers. ‘By agreeing to the spending caps deal, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and others argued, Democrats gave up all their leverage to force Republicans into serious negotiations to shield Dreamers from deportation.’”
“Some centrist-minded Democrats said Pelosi’s daylong protest could – by calling attention to the failure to provide relief for Dreamers – make it that much harder for vulnerable members to vote for the budget deal… ‘This stunt… had nothing to do with protecting vulnerable members who have to take a difficult vote… Working out this deal and then saying she’s not going to vote for it? Come on. She was at the table…’”
“All House Democrats are supportive of Dreamers. But several members, particularly centrists, are wary of using the immigration issue as a campaign cudgel, worried it could derail Democrats’ chances of taking back the House,” writes Politico.
And another House Democrat told Bloomberg: “Many of our members are furious. We have spent the last three weeks insisting that we don’t want to shut the government down over DACA, and she essentially made the whole thing about it. Virtually everyone trying to win seats outside of California feels she has hurt their chances.”
And that is the most shocking statement to come from this whole ordeal. How often will you hear any Democrat admitting that the actions or words of a fellow Democrat will hurt their chances in the next election?
How often will you hear that the “unstoppable blue wave” might actually have taken damage? Everyone in the media foolishly believes the 2018 midterms will surely go to the Democrats. Everyone on the Left believes this b.s. Just as they thought Hillary would trounce Trump in 2016.
In recent time, we’ve seen more infighting within the Democrat Party than within the GOP. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been any infighting within the GOP. There, of course, has been. But here we see House Democrats “furious”, as one notes, with their MINORITY LEADER! Usually, they focus their anger (of which there is a never ending supply because they’re Democrats and they are never happy for long) on Trump and Republicans. And to see them direct their anger towards one of their more notorious members is astonishing.
And the funny thing is that Chuck Schumer isn’t faring much better. At a recent anti-Trump rally in D.C., Leftist, Islamic nutcase Linda Sarsour attacked Schumer, saying: “I’m tired of white men negotiating on the backs of people of color and communities like ours. We are not bargaining chips. This is not a poker game.”
This coming from the whitest Muslim I’ve ever seen. Granted, her parents are Palestinian immigrants, so she certainly has that sort of background, but I find it funny that she considers herself a “person of color”. When your skin color is as light in tone as your teeth, you’re not really a person of color.
Heck, I’m a native-born Argentinian immigrant (and proud American citizen, mind you) and I’m rather pasty myself. I’m Hispanic but don’t consider myself a person of color. Why? Because I couldn’t care less what my skin color is. I don’t spend enough time thinking about people’s skin color to really care.
Regardless, that’s not the point of bringing that up. The point is that a Leftist went after another notorious Democrat in Chuck Schumer.
And this is coming after “Dreamer” protesters sat outside his house being angry at him. More evidence of infighting, if you will.
Of course, those “Dreamers” had no right to protest as they are not here legally. Only those here legally can enjoy the rights given to us by the Constitution. The right to assembly outside of Schumer’s house was not theirs. Not that it matters at this point.
But returning to Nancy, you really gotta love the things she says and does on occasion. I’ve already ridiculed her when she said the tax cuts would be actual Armageddon, but even Trump made some fun of her (before the 8-hour speech happened) when he spoke at a factory in Ohio.
Speaking about the bonus money people are getting thanks to the tax cuts, he said: “Nancy Pelosi again said that’s ‘crumbs’. Well, she’s a rich woman who lives in a big, beautiful house in California who wants to give all of your money away… She’s our secret weapon. I just hope they [Democrats] don’t change her…”
It’s not a good look for a Democrat to inadvertently be helping out Republicans in this manner. If even TRUMP is saying she’s the Republicans’ secret weapon, that can only mean she’s royally screwing the Democrats over.
And I agree with Trump. I do hope the Democrats don’t replace her. Just as I don’t want Hillary to go away any time soon, I don’t want Pelosi and Chuck to go any time soon. They are all ghosts haunting the Democrat Party. And the Democrats won’t make any progress towards defeating Trump if they don’t get rid of the Establishment within their own Party.
Even the Democrats have to drain their own swamp.
1 Kings 22:23
“Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
Remember when you were a kid and would be in trouble for something and you just lied and lied about it? Remember how you would feel about being caught in your own lies? Well, that’s exactly how Nancy Pelosi felt during an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.
The House voted to release a four-page memo outlining Obama’s DOJ and FBI minions abusing a surveillance program so that they could spy on Donald Trump during his transition to becoming President.
This memo presents a MASSIVE threat to the Democrats and Obama himself, so I’m not surprised to see Nancy Pelosi being nervous and stuttering at every sentence while talking with Chris Cuomo about it. Now, if she was this nervous when talking with Democrat-friendly Chris Cuomo, imagine how she would’ve felt talking with someone who might actually put some pressure on her.
To Chris’ credit, he did ask some proper questions about the memo when he needed to (and ignored the lying and b.s. Pelosi would spew, but that’s to be expected of him). But even with questions that make sense, Pelosi still felt nervous merely discussing it.
She would often say that releasing this memo would be a matter of national security even though Obama himself declassified top secret info about Bush’s fight with terrorism. When he did that, the New York Times reported that “exhaustive details about interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency could lead to a flood of new disclosures about secret Bush administration operations against Al Qaeda.”
THAT actually put U.S. officials at risk and THAT was a matter of national security that the Democrats simply didn’t care about. THIS release of the memo is not a matter of national security, it’s a matter of Democrat security. This memo will largely serve to further destroy Obama’s legacy and standing (with independents, perhaps, but it likely won’t do much with brainwashed liberals). This could lead to a lot of arrests in the future, perhaps including Obama himself.
So you can see why the Democrats don’t want the American people to see this memo. Pelosi claims it’s a matter of national security, even though it’s not. She also claims that people simply won’t understand what the memo means and says. That’s how little she thinks of regular citizens.
No, it’s likely that most people won’t understand all the legalistic aspects of the memo, but we’re smart enough to recognize a general theme: abuse of power and illegal espionage on an American citizen and President-elect.
Besides, it’s only four pages long. Even if it’s filled with all sorts of lawyer talk, I will still likely figure out what the memo is saying.
Back when Paul Manafort was indicted, I read the charges that Robert Mueller presented. I’ll be the first to admit I didn’t understand absolutely everything. I’m not a lawyer, after all. But I could understand what the charges were and that they had nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Once I read the memo, I might not understand absolutely everything it says, but I’ll be able to recognize what it’s talking about and what illegal deeds Obama and his Justice Department did during Trump’s transition to the White House.
And once I read it, myself, alongside a lot of other conservative news outlets, will be able to simplify things if needed. Though, I don’t think the people who will read the memo will be dumb enough to not see what it’s talking about (again, perhaps except brainwashed liberals who will keep their minds closed when reading it and believe it all to be lies).
Regardless, returning to Pelosi, it’s clear as day that she’s very nervous about this memo being released to the public. Just as Ephesians 5:13 says: “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that is illuminated becomes a light itself.”
What happens in the dark will come to the light. The secrets of the Obama DOJ will be revealed for all who have eyes to see; for all who have ears to hear.
Now, I should clarify something. It’s not the fact that the American people will see the memo that might lead to consequences for Obama and those involved in the illegal activities detailed in the memo. Punishment would likely occur despite the American people knowing about it.
That’s not what Pelosi is nervous about here. It’s not the fact that Obama and his Justice Department broke the law that worries her. She’s a career politician with a $30 million net worth. Like President Truman once said: “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.”
So it’s not the illegality of Obama’s actions that worries her. It’s the fact that people will KNOW that he did it that worries her. It’s the fact that it will be exposed to the general public.
It’s the fact that this memo will severely hurt the Democrats’ chances at retaking Congress in 2018. If it becomes general knowledge that Obama broke the law to spy on a political opponent, it will reflect badly upon Democrats in the future.
This memo can easily become a weapon for Republican candidates to expose the corruption of the Democrats (granted, they have a lot of other examples of this, but this becomes yet another one, and a big one, at that).
The reason Pelosi is so nervous about it is because this will only further destroy the Democrat Party. If used right, no Democrat should even retain a seat in 2018 (except in loony California, perhaps), let alone gain any.
Public opinion about them will likely diminish, even within their own base (Bernie supporters already thought Hillary was crooked, so this certainly doesn’t help anyone in the Establishment).
This memo will largely serve to further rip the Democrat Party to shreds.
“But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that is illuminated becomes a light itself.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
An article on TheHill.com caught my interest recently. You can see why with the title alone: “Liberal unrest threatens Dem immigration strategy.”
You don’t typically see Democrats opposing Democrats, or at least being divided on an issue. Even when they run for their Party’s nomination, they tend to agree on nearly everything, with the only disagreement being on how intensely they should pursue something. So to see an article that says there are people on the Left that don’t agree with Democrats is quite strange and interesting.
You might remember that, recently, Nancy Pelosi was heckled by “immigrants’ rights activists” who want Democrats to pass a “clean” Dream Act while also protecting the other 10 million illegals living in the country.
They heckled her and called her a liar when she said she was on their side (which she is) and believed she was betraying them by cutting a deal with Trump, chanting “all of us or none of us!” Gee, you’re really making this a tough decision, huh?
Those hecklers truly didn’t know that Nancy Pelosi is on their side and wants what they want. Trust me, she wishes Democrats didn’t have to try to negotiate with Trump. But here's the interesting part...
According to The Hill: “Some activists have been brought into the Democratic Party umbrella and agree with the need for negotiation… Others fear a deal between Trump and top Democrats would spare Dreamers while ‘kicking ICE into overdrive’ in persecution of other undocumented immigrants. Among that second group are activists who would rather accept new border-wall construction – a non-starter for the Democrats – than funding that could be used to hire more (ICE) agents.”
So it’s clear that there are two groups of immigrant activists: those who want Democrats to make a deal with Trump that would protect Dreamers and those who would rather ACCEPT BUILDING THE WALL than risk ICE hunting them down and deporting them.
“’A wall isn’t ICE, a wall doesn’t walk into your home and drag you out by your *expletive* hair’”, according the The Hill.
Man, I never thought I’d see immigrants be willing to give Trump the wall if it means that THEY get to stay here and not worry much about ICE. But here’s the strange part: while a Wall definitely takes a lot of money to fund, it likely won’t take away funding for ICE. Yes, ICE wouldn’t be heavily funded if a Wall is built, but it’s still a threat to illegals.
But I guess they have to deal with the cards they’ve been dealt. It’s either allow Trump to build a Wall and not have ICE super funded and super powerful to deport a whole lot of them or make a deal that just protects DACA recipients, doesn’t protect the rest and ICE gets funding that otherwise would’ve gone to the Wall.
I would feel sorry for them if they weren’t criminals. I would feel sorry for them if they weren’t looking to pay for their crimes one way or another.
But these kinds of things typically go ignored or unnoticed by the MSM. As did the overwhelming majority of support for Trump over Hillary, the media chooses to ignore the fact that there’s internal struggles within their own party and even their BASE!
However, that really shouldn’t come as such a big surprise. We all saw just how truly divided the Democrat base was in the primaries. Bernie Sanders was clearly better liked than Clinton, but the DNC never gave him or anyone else the chance to be the Democrat candidate for the 2016 election. And it’s clear that there were plenty of (registered) Democrats who wound up not voting at all because Hillary was so unlikable or simply because they were pissed that the DNC screwed Bernie over.
So there has been evidence of Democrats being divided, but they are not typically divided on ISSUES. While you see every single day that Republicans are worthless and are heavily divided on issues such as Obamacare and tax reform, Democrats tend to stick together. But, then again, all Democrats are Establishment (and the Establishment is communist), so they all know what way to vote.
But it’s entirely different to see people outside the Establishment divided on an issue, as opposed to a candidate. Sure, they will prefer one candidate over another, but they typically all agree on issues. They are typically either communists or dangerously misinformed. But here, you can see at least two sides within Democrats.
One side would rather try to strong-arm Trump (a tactic that simply won’t work) into protecting Dreamers and giving up on the Wall, and the other side would rather allow Trump to build the Wall, knowing that ICE won’t then be heavily funded to “mass deport” millions of illegals.
And it’s truly interesting to see this. Mostly because we’ve mostly been talking about Trump and HIS base and supporters and how THEY feel about a deal with the Democrats. But we have not payed attention to the Democrat base, largely because we thought they were all on the same page. I certainly didn’t expect Pelosi to get heckled by people that she agrees with and is on the same side with.
Heck, I even remember the time when Bernie Sanders was heckled at a campaign stop by Black Lives Matter people, even though he is on their side as well. So it’s clear that there is at least SOME division within the Democrat base.
And do you want to know what else is interesting? We (conservatives and Trump supporters) aren’t divided. The media will tell you that Trump’s base is leaving him and that we are divided amongst ourselves, but none of that is true. What they think is Trump’s base is the REPUBLICAN base. And, to an extent, they are right! Trump’s base is, largely, the Republican base… it’s just that Republicans no longer HAVE a base.
I wouldn’t call myself a Republican any more. I would call myself a Trumper. I don’t support the Republican Party, because they don’t support me. Trump, on the other hand, does support me and other Americans, and so, I support him. The Republicans no longer have a base. That base is now Trump’s base. But why do I say “to an extent”? Because I know and have seen plenty of former Democrats be in support of Trump.
Democrats who have formerly voted for Obama at least once and have decided to instead support Trump. Trump’s base is the Republican base + disillusioned Obama voters. Trump’s base is an AMERICAN base. Pro-America. While the Democrat base is largely anti-America and the Republican base is virtually non-existent.
And to see the Democrat base be divided at least to this current level is great. That’s merely one of the many reasons Trump won the election. And thankfully, we continue to see at least SOME level of division within the Democrat base.
We don’t tend to see evil and ignorance be divided, but when it happens, it’s great to see.
“But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
On Thursday, September 14th, the social media world exploded when reports came in (through the MSM) that Trump, Schumer and Pelosi reached a deal that would protect “Dreamers” and exclude the building of a wall.
Schumer and Pelosi, after their dinner with the president, released the following statement: “[We] agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”
If you read this alone, you’d think Trump caved on the Wall. But you have to remember exactly who is giving this statement. The Left will always lie when it benefits them. They’ve been trying to separate Trump from his supporters, and saying that Trump caved on the Wall is an attempt at doing just that.
And it worked for a bit. I saw plenty of conservatives be enraged at Trump on social media, when only one side (the b.s. liberal side) was given. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted out: “No deal was made last night on DACA”. Trump also said, later in the day, that the three came “fairly close” to reaching a deal that would require “massive border security”.
Then, while traveling to Florida to assess the damage of Hurricane Irma and helping the victims, the President said: “Ultimately, we have to have the wall. If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing.” He said that having the wall was “vital” and even called out Republicans who would “become the obstructionists” if the wall weren’t to be funded.
Now, I don’t know about you, but if the last couple of years is anything to go by, I’d trust what Trump says over what the MSM or Schumer and Pelosi said happened. If we don’t trust them when they say that Russia hacked the election or that Climate Change is happening and it’s our fault, why would we trust them when they say they’ve made a deal with the president? Particularly when he says that no deal was made in the end?
I’ve seen plenty of people on social media explode, saying they want the Wall and that we NEED the Wall. And I agree, but you have to realize that Trump never took the Wall off the table. He said no deal was made, so why trust the Left over him on this particular issue?
And Trump isn’t the only one to push back on what the Democrat leaders said. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted: “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to.”
Like Trump, I’d trust HER more than any other news source on things the President does.
Now, Trump HAS softened his views on the Dreamer issue. Tweeting: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” Another tweet read: “They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age.”
This garnered one particular “Trump supporter” to attack the president. Ann Coulter tweeted: “’Put a fork in Trump, he’s dead’” and “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?” Really? He softens his position on this one issue and you’re ready to put him in the guillotine? Ready to impeach him? Now, I won’t react too much towards Coulter’s tweets, since this isn’t the first time she’s thrown a tantrum over Trump doing something she didn’t like. She’s not a supporter, she’s simply trying to get attention and clicks to her page. That’s it.
The problem with that is that you come across as not being able to choose a side. You’re either FOR the President, therefore with conservatives, or AGAINST him and therefore with the Left. Megyn Kelly was against Trump and alienated her conservative audience. The Left never liked her. Conservatives no longer like her, so now her only audience is Never Trump traitors over at NBC, where her ratings are about what you’d expect when not a lot of people like you.
So it makes no sense to want to throw out Trump over THIS. He’s not saying he’s giving the Dreamers citizenship so they can vote for Democrats. He’s not giving up the Wall. In fact, he’s literally said he’s STILL going for the Wall. And he’s not going to sell out the country.
He will, however, try to get things to happen. Republicans are among the worst kind of scum on the Earth and won’t help Trump with anything. Democrats are willing to work with Trump if they get a little something in return. They’ve already done this with the debt ceiling, which wound up not meaning too much while also helping those affected by Hurricane Harvey with the “Hurricane Harvey Relief” part of the deal.
With the DACA issue, he’s willing to soften his position, but these people are somewhat different from other illegals. These DACA people were brought into the country through illegal means. But that’s at least a little bit more understandable than someone crossing the border on his own. It’s easy to know what we want with illegals that cross the border and exploit the country’s system. It’s a little bit more difficult knowing what you want when this involves people who were BROUGHT into our country and don’t know anything else outside of it. And it’s not exactly fair or even humane to flat out kick them out when they are not the ones at fault.
Now, there are different kinds of DACA children. Some of them were shipped by their parents from a foreign country. And some simply came here with their parents.
So, you have to take different measures with the different circumstances. Here’s what I propose:
First, the children shipped by their parents. I can understand parents wanting what’s best for their children, but a 6 or 7 year old is simply not going to do much better in this country without his/her parents. Could you imagine being that young, being in a foreign land where you don’t know the language, don’t know where to go and don’t know what to do, forced to live with a relative you barely know? It’s a horrible nightmare. So those children should be shipped back to their parents, because it’s better to be with people who love you somewhere not as good as the U.S. than being on your own, scared out of your mind in the best country in the world. At least at that age.
Children aren’t like adults. Adults will be better able to get by in a foreign country than a child would. So, they go back to their parents.
Finally, those who came here with their parents illegally. Well, this one’s the easiest. Send them all back. Each of them is breaking the law, and the child’s parents are teaching him/her that it’s OK to break the law on occasion. No child should be taught to break the law unless it’s a law that goes against God or the Bible. But border laws don’t go against God or the Bible. It’s not good for children to be taught that they can break the law if they will benefit from doing so.
But to return to the whole “Trump caved” issue, let’s not overreact. And let’s certainly not pay attention to what the Left says when Trump himself hasn’t given his side of the argument. We’ve never trusted the Left on anything else, why would we do it this time?
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...