We’ve likely all seen Jim Acosta’s video of him at the border, pointing out that there doesn’t seem to be a crisis or emergency like Trump is talking about, but failing to realize that he is walking right next to steel slats much like Trump wants to build in much of the Southern Border. That gaffe has been rightly called a self-own.
But once in a while, you get a self-own so magnificent, you wonder if the person responsible for it has any idea what he or she has done.
While Jim Acosta made a short video about his own opinions on the state of the border, Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank unwittingly made perhaps one of the best cases I’ve ever seen against Obama and Leftist policies.
Now, before you ask: yes, T.A. Frank is, himself, a Democrat.
Vanity Fair is one of the most Left-leaning sites out there, and that’s saying a lot. Which is why it’s so surprising to see them write the following piece and publish it on their site.
Frank’s article is titled: “Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning On Obama’s Legacy.”
Pretty juicy and interesting title.
But it’s what he says next that is even juicier:
“Obama was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal, but many of the country’s most ominous trends also proceeded apace under his watch…”
That was his subhead.
Now, I won’t go over everything in the article. He begins by talking about this difference in Washington between what is considered the establishment, which wishes to maintain the status quo (I would argue somewhat differently, but fine), and the radicals on both the Democrat and Republican parties.
Frank says that, while much of Obama’s rhetoric was more on the radical Left of the spectrum, much of his actions were fairly establishmentarian.
He argues that when the establishment told Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, he did just that. When “they told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed,” he “hid them”. When “they said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky”, he “avoided it”. When “they said that our trade agreements enriched the nation”, he “promoted them”. And when they “called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya”, “he toppled its leader”.
Basically, Frank argues that Obama was at the beck and call of the Washington Establishment and he would do pretty much whatever they told him to do, even though Frank also argues that Obama was not, himself, an establishment President.
Remember the days when the media would not dare attack or challenge Obama in any way whatsoever? They would stick up for him no matter what, so for this guy to be saying these things, even if Obama has not been President for two years, is pretty fascinating and unexpected.
Now, the reason Frank argues for saying these sorts of things is that 2020 Democrat candidates have to look at how to tackle Trump, whom he says is a wild card of a candidate. (He also says Trump is failing in countless ways, which I would strongly disagree with, but to each their own).
He argues that since Obama was so rooted in establishmentarianism, Dem candidates may want to look at what might be best for them. He says Elizabeth Warren might want people to think she’s a radical and Joe Biden wants people to consider him the establishment choice.
As far as Warren goes, I don’t think she has much hope of winning the nomination, if I’m honest. That DNA test result that she stupidly claimed proved her heritage when it did the exact opposite has seriously derailed any chances she may have had at becoming the Dem nominee.
Biden, on the other hand, might have the best shot out of anyone to be the Dem candidate, even if he is more of an establishment guy and many other Leftists seek a radical.
But here’s the thing: like I said before, Frank makes the best case against Leftism as well.
There are two paragraphs I want to point towards, where he makes the best case against Leftist policies, even if he does not outright make any connections between a cause (Leftist policies) and effect (the negative things I am about to share with you).
Without further ado, here are the two paragraphs I’m talking about:
After talking about the differences between the establishment and the radicals in both parties, he writes: “Where does this leave us (Democrats), and what does it portend for Democrats in 2020? On the one hand, it’s unfair to call Barack Obama an establishment president with all the status-quo overtones of the term. He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments. On the other hand, many of the country’s most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch. The financialization of the economy kept increasing (whatever that means). Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers – a hundred here, a couple of hundred there – kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions.”
“The concise and indispensable new book The Nationalist Revival, by the left-leaning John B. Judis, contains one especially haunting statistic: 3.4 million jobs lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of these forgotten Americans, Obama’s final State of the Union address lauding a manufacturing surge rang hollow, and so did his vision of making ‘change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.’ They had already heard, many times, that ‘they may have to retool, they may have to re-train.’ It was Bill Clinton, still a canny reader of the public, at times, who had to observe that ‘millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it.’”
That is an awful lot to go through and I cannot possibly go through everything and still keep this article at standard length.
One of the main things I want to point out is that, in the first paragraph, as I have stated previously, Frank unwittingly makes the best case against Leftism.
He recognizes all the things that Obama was doing. And he also recognizes many of the ominous things that were happening in pace with the things Obama was doing. But he still somehow does not make the connection between the two of them.
What Obama was doing was choking the American economy and allowing for other countries to make deals with us where we would be utterly screwed. The Paris deal, as an example, is not something we needed to be a part of at any point. We were spending a ton more money as part of the deal in “fighting” climate change. However, with Trump pulling us out of the deal, we still manage to meet the expectations and requirements of the Paris deal WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR IT!
Another thing I want to point out which is interesting to me is one of the negatives he lists in the first paragraph. “Illegal border-crossers kept coming”.
Not only am I surprised that he is using the term “illegal” because those who consider themselves to be “woke” would never use that term, but I am also surprised that he sees that as any sort of problem at all.
Given the current rhetoric of many on the Left, the idea of an America with open borders is enticing. And yet, Frank notes that this unlawful act is a negative associated with the Obama administration.
You don’t see that very often. And, funny enough, it’s yet another reason I cannot believe the guy is not making a connection between the things Obama was doing and the negative things that came along with those things.
Notice how many of the negatives he listed are slowly but surely getting resolved now that Trump is President. Trump, as many on the Left will note, is undoing pretty much everything Obama set out to do and actually managed to do.
Trade policy is different now than with Obama. Obama made sure other countries got the better end of the deal while the U.S. paid for it. Trump makes sure the opposite is true: we get the better end of the deal.
Illegal border-crossing, while that’s still an ongoing thing and continues to escalate, is something Trump has literally based his entire campaign around. He won on the Wall. Even Chuck Schumer said that people voted for the Wall before he caught himself and rephrased it as “some people” voted for the Wall.
Trump won on the issue of addressing and fixing illegal immigration. And while Obama was dubbed the “deporter-in-chief”, he hardly helped secure the border all that much more (even though he used to be in favor of building walls).
Wherever there is a wall at the southern border, such as San Diego, there is considerably less illegal border-crossing than wherever there are no walls. Jim Acosta himself showed that, as I mentioned in the beginning, where there is a wall, there is no crisis.
It’s funny what happens when you get rid of the cause of some effects. The economic policies Obama enacted killed jobs, while the policies Trump has enacted have created them.
This is why I say Frank makes the best case against Leftism. Everything Obama did was Leftist policy. All of it. And what was the result? Jobs gone, people suffering, and America declining. Take away all those Leftist policies and what do you get? Jobs returning, people prospering, and America surging.
I have gone as far as to bookmark that article on Chrome to make sure to come back to it and point out that even one of the Left’s own journalists has noted Obama’s supposed accomplishments and the things that came with those accomplishments, even if he does not recognize their cause-and-effect relationship. According to the Logical Law of Causality, every effect must have a cause. Obama's policies were the cause. And indebtedness, joblessness, etc. were the effect. By eliminating Obama's policies (cause), you get the opposite results of more jobs, more prosperity, etc. (effect), which is exactly what President Trump is doing.
Thank you, Mr. Frank, for the truly great gift you have bestowed upon us. Here’s hoping that if you’re smart enough to recognize the bad things that came along the things Obama did, you will be smart enough to recognize the cause and effect of Leftist policies.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In recent time, as entirely expected by those who did not take the threat of this invasion lightly, the migrant caravan, or at least a number of them, have been storming the border to the United States and have been met by opposing forces from Border Patrol agents.
The media and the Left will be quick to point out that Border Patrol was using pepper spray and tear gas on the “immigrants” (I won’t call them immigrants. I AM an immigrant; they are invaders). But they will just as quickly ignore the fact that the invaders were unwilling to line up to apply for asylum and started throwing rocks and bottles at border agents, prompting the agents to defend themselves.
I don’t give a rat’s behind what anyone says, you cannot credibly say these people are asylum seekers anymore. Never mind the fact that, if they were just seeking asylum from their own countries, they would’ve stopped at other Latin American countries or Mexico and sought asylum there. But if the argument is that they are trying to seek asylum here in the U.S., then why would they storm the border instead of waiting in line to get it done?
Not a damn Leftist can possibly tell me now that these people are asylum seekers. If they were not invaders before they got to the border (which they were), they definitely are now.
But in any case, due to the appropriate-to-sane-people response from the borders, the Left is livid and absolutely bananas over it. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) tweeted (and later deleted the tweet) a comparison between using tear gas and chemical weapons. Then, he tweeted (and kept) the following: “Anyone uncomfortable with spraying tear gas on children is welcome to join the coalition of the moral and the sane. We can argue about other stuff when we’ve got our country back.”
Basically, he’s accusing border patrol, without proof, that they were specifically targeting children and families.
Qasim Rashid, a Muslim activist, tweeted a very dumb list of nations that have used gas on civilians that actually ties into the main point of this article.
Here’s what he writes: “Updated list of Nations that have used gas on civilians: Italy, Mussolini (1934), Japan, Hirohito (1937-39), Germany, Hitler (1940-45), USA, Nixon (1961-71), Egypt, Nasser (1963-67), Iraq, Hussain (1978-91), Syria, Assad (2012-13), USA, Trump (2018-??). This must stop.”
A couple of things. First, notice how he doesn’t specify what kind of gas is being used. He just says “gas”. The kind of gas Hitler, Saddam, and Assad used was chemical gas. The kind that kills people. Trump is using tear gas. The kind that doesn’t kill people. So he’s trying really hard here to draw comparisons between Trump and Hitler, or Trump and Assad, or Trump and Saddam, but to do that, he ignores the kind of gas being used by either and just leaves it at that. Talk about fake news.
Second, he mentions Nixon from 1961-71. Even that has a number of things to cover, such as the fact that Nixon was not President for 10 years, and he was not President until 1969. From 1961 to 1969 (before Nixon took office), the Presidents were John F. Kennedy (1961 to 1963) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969). So if he wants to say that the U.S. used “gas” against civilians in that time period, it largely falls on two Democrat Presidents.
Finally, he creates the illusion that the U.S. did not engage similarly with illegals from 1971 to 2018. And this is what ultimately ties into the main point of the article. Because on November of 2013, now a little over 5 years ago, roughly 100 people tried storming the border near “the San Ysidro port of entry” and they “threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico,” according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.
It’s not explicitly stated whether or not the Border Patrol in the 2013 incident used tear gas, but they used other things as well to defend themselves and the border, other things that were obviously non-lethal, otherwise lethal action would’ve made the mainstream news.
According to Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman, Border Patrol back in the 2013 incident fired pepper balls and other “intermediate use-of-force devices.”
Obviously, such actions should be commended, not condemned, and the media definitely made sure not to condemn them back when Obama was President.
But this news story details an eerily similar situation in a gap of 5 years, and in similar areas. A large number of illegals storming the border, throwing rocks and bottles (which could lead to serious injury and/or death), being met by non-lethal force from Border Patrol. The only difference is that it’s okay when Obama does it, but it’s not okay when Trump does it.
It’s perfectly smart and reasonable to do it when Obama does it, but it’s inhumane and insane when Trump does it. I’m not saying this to attack Obama. The actions his Border Patrol did in 2013 were the right ones. And Obama, on the same day as this invasion, even went to a rally and talked about the need to secure our border (video below).
He talked about a measure in the Senate about immigration reform and urged House Republicans (who had the majority at the time) to pass the bill.
So it’s perfectly reasonable when Obama says we should secure our borders (and it is, though I know for certain he didn’t really want that), but it’s absolutely insane when Trump wants to secure our borders.
If Trump is inhumane and evil for doing this with the invaders, then Obama was just as inhumane and evil for doing something extremely similar.
Obviously, the actions that occurred earlier this week and 5 years ago by Border Patrol were the correct ones. You do what you can to protect yourself and do your job. However, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left highlights exactly why I think they’re insane.
Again, when Obama does something, it’s good. I’m old enough to remember the Left was pretty much on board with Obama going to war against Syria. The same group of people who supposedly want peace were supporting Obama when there were talks of a possible war with Syria.
Need I remind you that Obama, according to ABC News, deported “more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century” that is, he deported more people than all the Presidents of the 20th century (1900-1999) combined. Of course, I suspect things were a bit different back then, but still.
Not to mention that, according to ABC News, Bush deported “just over two million during his time in office”. By comparison, Obama had deported 2.5 million from 2009-2015. The article I’m citing here came out on August 29th, 2016, so Obama had yet to leave office at the time. According to an article on the Washington Post, by the end of his presidency, Obama had deported more than 5 million illegals. Pro-immigration groups even dubbed him “Deporter-in-Chief”.
And yet, I do not remember the Left attacking Obama as though he was some sort of evil man. I don’t remember them idiotically quoting a poem about the Statue of Liberty to argue that he stop deporting illegals.
It was completely fine for him to do it, in their minds, but it’s full-on Armageddon when Trump does it. Although, with all their apocalyptic virtue-signaling, I wonder if there are any people left after the apocalypse brought on by the repeal of Net Neutrality or the apocalypse brought on by the GOP tax cuts, or the apocalypse brought on by Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, or the apocalypse brought on by Trump’s 2016 election victory.
Jokes aside, the hypocrisy of the Left is absolutely stunning. Trump gave these people a chance to enter the country legitimately. They chose to invade, just as I knew they would.
I won’t take any crap from any Leftist on this. These people are not asylum seekers, otherwise they wouldn’t have thrown away the opportunity to receive asylum. These people are not seeking a better life in the U.S., they are seeking to exploit our economic opportunities without offering to be part of the American way of life, without offering to assimilate, and contributing nothing to the country.
The Left is ridiculous in their insistence that these people want asylum. On contraire, they want to invade and their actions show that precise desire.
Apart from that, the Left is ridiculous in their insistence that Border Patrol is being inhumane under Trump’s orders. If they are inhumane under Trump, they were inhumane under Obama back in 2013.
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
A show of hands, who here actually believes that Obama doesn’t make stuff up? That he tells the truth as often as he speaks and that he never hides the truth or tries to circumvent it? I would seriously hope not a single one of you raised your hands (not that I could tell anyhow), because Obama is the closest thing we’ve seen to a real-life Pinocchio, to the point even Left-wing PolitiFact said Obama was lying when he said those infamous words: “if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.”
Recently, in a seemingly very feeble attempt at creating any sort of excitement for Democrat voters, the former President held an event in Nevada (which could barely draw flies). During this event, he said: “Unlike some, I actually try to state facts. I believe in facts. I believe in a fact-based reality and a fact-based politics. I don’t believe in just making stuff up.”
Really? Does he want me to exhume the skeletons in his closet? Because I will do just that.
Back in March of 2017, which seems like an eternity ago at this point, I wrote an article asking the question of whether or not Obama deserved to go to jail. Of course, I ultimately said that he absolutely does (actually, it was literally the first thing I said). But in that article, I briefly went over a couple of things he did that were illegal that should land him in jail.
I talked about Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Operation Choke Point (the attempt at illegally shutting down gun stores) and the ordering of shutting down a business because the factory was non-union.
But that barely touches on the scandal that was the Obama Presidency. I mentioned that the site I got the information from, Thetruthdivision.com, listed 78 illegal things that Obama did as POTUS. This was before even knowing he used the FBI and DOJ to try to affect a presidential election.
But what we want to focus on here is not necessarily the illegal things he did, but the lies he’s told. Lies like “you like your doctor, you keep your doctor” and such.
He lied about Syria having chemical weapons, as we discovered early last year.
He lied about enforcing a “red line” against Russia.
He lied about not even having any scandals as POTUS (a lie he told earlier this year).
He lied about calling Benghazi a terrorist attack. Back in 2013, he said: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”
He never used the word “terrorism” to describe the attack. Time and time again, interview after interview, he would try and circumvent calling it a terrorist attack, saying that they were “investigating” the incident.
The reason for doing this is so that he could claim he did what Bush couldn’t do and that is to stop terrorism. Calling the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi consulate a terrorist attack would put an end to that ridiculous claim. Of course, only a year or so later, Obama allowed for ISIS to grow to replace al-Qaeda as our biggest enemy in the Middle East, so that in itself put an end to his ridiculous claim, but he had already gotten reelected by that point, so it didn’t matter.
He would also constantly lie about unemployment going down, when millions of Americans were out of work.
Even PolitiFact and the Washington Post list many of Obama’s lies, with the WaPo listing ten of the biggest lies Obama told as President and with PolitiFact using up 4 webpages to list a number of lies Obama has told.
And now, Obama is lying about lying. How rich is that?
It’s really no wonder he can hardly draw in any people at an event he is highlighting. If you’ve seen the pictures of Obama’s Nevada rally in contrast with Trump’s MAGA rally in Houston, Texas, you can see the massive difference in enthusiasm.
Barack Obama, once considered a rockstar of the Democrat Party, can hardly draw in people at a relatively small venue.
Donald Trump, the current President of the United States who has been working for the past 2 years to Make America Great Again and delivering results, manages to fill to the brim an arena where the Houston Rockets, an NBA team, play half the season. The Toyota Center can only seat 19,000 people. It’s reported that “requests for tickets topped 100,000 people”, according to the Daily Wire.
And you also see pictures of Trump and Cruz supporters filling the streets of Houston to attend the rally, with many also opting to camp out near the stadium.
Why the massive difference? For one, Trump is Making America Great Again, which needed to be made great again largely because of the extensive damage that Obama caused in his 8 years in office.
I believe I have said in the past that, had the media reported on Obama the same way they report on Trump, or even if they reported honestly about him, he would be remembered as the worst President this country had ever seen. That while he likely would’ve won in 2008 because people were very dissatisfied with Bush, and by extension, Republicans, he likely would’ve lost the 2012 election.
Why? Because not only did his policies ensure to cause lasting damage to the country and its people, but because he lied about everything, with the help of the mainstream media.
Let’s not forget one massive lie that Obama told that likely tops the Obamacare lie. Obama lied about the Iran nuclear deal. And he got the media, with the help of John Kerry, to lie about it to the people.
It’s this, along with many other instances of lies that cover up the destruction of the country, that helped Trump get elected and will likely help him get reelected in 2020.
Obama is a pathological liar, but now, he’s lost much of his power to fool people. The media will still cover for him, of course, but even they have lost all credibility with the American people.
No wonder Obama can’t draw in flies with the manure he utters.
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. Unlike the lies Obama would constantly tell, and the lies the Left continues to make, when I say that this is free, that means it’s free. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If this title seems familiar to you, I would not be very surprised. A month ago, almost to the date, I wrote an article about unemployment claims standing at a 50-year-low. However, those numbers are a tad different from these numbers.
In that previous article, I covered a story by The Hill, where they said: “Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell to a seasonally adjusted 203,000 for the week… the lowest since December 1969… the four-week moving average… was 209,500… the lowest level for this average since Dec. 6, 1969 when it was 204,500.”
But the unemployment rate is a different story. A month ago, it stood at 3.9%. In the latest jobs report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “the unemployment rate declined to 3.7 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 134,000…”
According to the BLS: “the number of unemployed persons decreased by 270,000 to 6.0 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons declined by 0.5 percentage points and 795,000, respectively.”
The report also mentions that adult women’s unemployment rate stands at 3.3%, as well as White unemployment. “The jobless rates for adult men (3.4 percent), teenagers (12.8 percent), Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (3.5 percent), and Hispanics (4.5 percent) showed little to no change over the month.”
The last time I saw the black unemployment rate, it stood around 5.9%, so a little bit of an increase, unfortunately, but nothing severe. Hispanic unemployment rate is sitting at the same record low that it was last month.
Now, we should also mention the fact that we only added 134,000 jobs last month, which is lower than usual and lower than was even expected.
According to the BLS: “Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 134,000 in September, compared with an average gain of 201,000 over the prior 12 months.”
However, they explain that Hurricane Florence hitting some of the East coast states likely impacted the jobs report to some extent. I do not know the full details of how much damage the hurricane caused and how many jobs were negatively affected by the hurricane in this report, but it stands to reason that the hurricane would do at least some damage.
Regardless of this, the overall news is pretty fantastic. Sitting at a 50-year-low unemployment rate is pretty significant and a huge achievement for this administration. It really should not be understated how big an achievement this is.
The last time we had an unemployment rate this low:
So knowing all of this, this just tells you how impressive of an achievement this is.
We have record-low unemployment rates across the board and we are truly Making America Great Again.
When the Democrats say they “have to stop Trump”, is this what they mean? They want to stop the economy booming? They want to set us back in trade policy with other nations? They want to set us back in foreign policy altogether? They want to allow ISIS, or Muslim extremists in general, to rebuild their strength and once again pose a threat to Western Civilization?
I know these are all rhetorical questions, but the answer honestly is yes. That’s precisely what they want to do. They hate the fact that the economy is doing so well under Trump. They hate the fact that he’s successfully destroyed NAFTA and negotiated a new, better deal with Mexico and Canada. They hate the fact that his “bullying” tactics have worked with North Korea so far, and even try to say that such tactics won’t work on Iran. They hate the fact that terrorism is now largely a threat to nations that have elected socialist governments to represent them, such as Great Britain, France, etc., while largely leaving the U.S. alone.
We never had numbers even close to this with Obama. Sure, they tried to say the numbers were low, but largely because a lot of people simply stopped looking for work in the first place. These numbers are real, as reflected by the fact that wages are going up and thousands of businesses have given their employees some extra cash in their pockets, with Walmart having increased their minimum wage to $15 without being pushed to doing this and risking layoffs.
The economy is truly booming, which is why the MSM doesn’t cover it unless the Dow Jones goes down by a lot in a single day (and when it goes back up by a lot the next, they go back to not covering the economy very much).
And no Democrat, especially Obama, is to thank for this. It’s not their tax cuts that are helping – it’s the GOP’s. They adamantly voted against those tax cuts, if you’ll remember.
Here’s hoping that there is a Red Wave this November, Congress gets flooded with more and more Republicans and we can continue seeing these great numbers all the way to 2020, when Trump goes against Cory “not so Smarticus” Booker, Kamala “illegals are more important than you” Harris, Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren or Hillary “how am I still not in jail, Jeff?” Clinton.
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is an entirely free newsletter that is released every single week. You get a compilation of the week’s articles delivered straight to your inbox for easy viewing. And the best part is that it comes free of cost 100%. So make sure to subscribe today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There’s something to be said surrounding this very topic: results matter.
But before I get too ahead of myself, allow me to set up the context for this article.
Recently, Cabot Phillips of Campus Reform went to Michigan State University to ask college students about Obama’s ludicrous attempt at taking credit for Trump’s economic success.
As a reminder, here’s what Obama said: “When you hear how great the economy’s doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started.” Oh, I remember. It started the day Trump got elected, with the stock market soaring to new heights as a result of the election. Remember how the Left said Trump would cause the market to crash if he got elected? I definitely do.
Now, while some on the Left such as anyone within the Leftist media or anyone who dons a “D” next to their name in Congress might believe this ridiculous idea that today’s economic success is even partly due to Obama, it seems that the college students Cabot interviewed did not share the same views.
In the video (below), Cabot asks multiple students about what Obama said and their overall opinions on the economy and Trump’s job regarding it.
One student said: “[Obama’s] been out long enough now, [the economy] is not on him anymore, it’s more on Donald Trump. I guess he’s a little bit in the wrong.”
Another said: “I would, unfortunately, side with Trump on this one. I think he has done a lot for the economy that Obama didn’t do such a good job on, so I’ll side with Trump on that one.”
One student noted that “I feel like once a President’s done, they hand it off… in terms of [economic] confidence and changing people’s attitudes, I would say that’s mostly Trump.”
Now, that’s not to say that these students are going to start supporting Trump. Pretty much every single student interviewed either visibly or verbally showed that, while they agree with Trump over Obama on this issue, they do so with some dismay. You can see that when one of the students said that she “unfortunately” sided with Trump on this. One of the female students went as far as to say that she finds Trump’s tweets “because I’m a girl and a lot of [the tweets] are against us.”
I don’t want to get too much into this, as I’d rather relish in the idea that college students actually agree with Trump on SOMETHING, but I will quickly say that not a single Trump tweet is against women. If they call someone out, they call a particular someone out (be it Pelosi, Feinstein, Warren, etc.) but do not make any sort of generalized sexist comment towards women. So, obviously, I disagree with the student on this.
That being said, she does follow up her comments, getting back on topic, that “economically, I feel like he’s really helping us.”
Now, I don’t know who “us” is in this scenario. Since she mentioned the fact that she’s a girl (do I call her out for not saying she’s cisgender, thus offending transgenders? Kidding.) she could mean he’s helping women economically, since female unemployment rate is hovering in the low 4% according to the website statista.com. She could also mean millennials, in which case the overall unemployment rate also shows promise for this age group. Or she could mean Americans altogether, in which case I would refer you to the overall unemployment rate, the African-American unemployment rate sitting below 6%, the female unemployment rate, the Hispanic unemployment rate sitting at 4.7% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as the overall growing GDP hitting over 4%.
To summarize, yeah, Trump’s doing pretty good for all of us.
Now, let me return to the initial sentence of this article. Earlier, I mentioned that results matter. What exactly do I mean by that? Well, think about it. When else are we going to see Leftist millennial college students agree with Trump on anything?
The mainstream media “reports” everything that is happening (or not actually happening) as though it’s doomsday, it will doom Republicans in November and will lead to Trump’s impeachment. The media loves to pretend the world is on fire when a Republican is President and they make sure that they blame this "doomsday" on him, but when a Democrat is President, they go out of their way to ensure things that are actually going bad aren't blamed on the Democrat President.
Just think about the way the media reported things during Obama's presidency. They would report that things were bad, but they made the effort to drive any blame away from Obama and instead, placing it either on the Republican majority in Congress when they had it, or the Republican minority in Congress when they had it. Either way, everything wrong that happened was not the result of Obama’s socialistic rule that naturally and intentionally destroys societies but the result of the Republicans either pretending to fight or even being completely complacent.
In the case of Trump, it’s 180 degrees backwards. Everything bad that happens is Trump’s fault, even if he has no control over it. I mean, for crying out loud, they were blaming HURRICANES on him. That shows you the mental state of the media is quite poor if they blame THE WEATHER on Trump. It’s really no different from the crazies in the Muslim world who blame Israel for, well, the weather. It’s almost literally the exact same thing.
With the constant reporting of Trump basically being Hitler, it really is a marvel that these Leftist college students, who themselves do not necessarily like Trump, go as far as to properly give credit to Trump for the success he’s had regarding the economy.
And that’s why I say that results matter. These students, despite the fact that they agreed with Trump with varying levels of dismay, and even go as far as to mention what they don’t like about Trump (seemingly, it was mostly his tweets), can all see that Trump is actually doing a good job with the economy. Even if they don’t think he’s a good President, they can’t help but agree that he has helped with the economy.
Now, I could sit here and list the other achievements that show that Trump is a fantastic President not just in terms of the economy but many other aspects of leading the country, but that’s for another time. As it is, I want to take note of the fact that, despite the media and the Left’s best efforts to pin Trump as the worst President to have ever served office, they can’t successfully convince people to ignore every facet of reality.
The reality is that Trump’s economy is the best I have ever seen (being 22-years-old, that’s not saying much, particularly since I only have Obama’s economy for comparison) and that it’s showing no signs of slowing down.
From what I can gather, the only way the economy will slow down is if the Democrats win the House (especially if they win Congress). The disruption they would cause would send us back to the economic stagnation we were all too familiar with during the Obama administration. Sure, Trump can do some other things that will certainly help the economy (I still don’t believe Democrats could impeach Trump without a supermajority in the Senate), but things would definitely slow down significantly.
While I don’t necessarily believe that any of the interviewed college students will vote for a Republican candidate, the fact that they go as far as to acknowledge this is Trump’s economy and his to claim success over is significant.
Who knows? Maybe one of them will have a change of tune about the Democrat Party and vote Republican, either this November or sometime down the line. There certainly have been a lot of lifelong Democrat voters who have had enough with the Party of the ass and have decided to vote for Trump and/or other Republicans.
One can hope.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. With it, you can receive in your e-mail inbox a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as access to our online website. And the best part is that it’s completely free. With our current economic climate thanks to Trump (and more importantly, to God) it’s not like people couldn’t afford to pay for such a thing. However, I will not charge you a single cent for this sort of access. So make sure to sign up for our free weekly newsletter today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s not surprising to see the Left and the MSM calling a Republican “worse than Mussolini” or “worse than Bin Laden” or the big one: “worse than Hitler”. Likewise, it came as no surprise to me when I saw that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough essentially said Trump is “worse than the 9/11 terrorists”. But I feel compelled to attack this entire notion in one go, so that’s what I will try to do here.
First, let’s begin with Scarborough’s comment. He wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post that Trump poses a “far graver threat to the idea of America” than the 9/11 terrorists did. He argues this by using something Roger Cohen wrote for the NYT shortly after Trump’s election: “America is an idea. Strip freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law from what the United States represents to the world, and America itself is gutted.”
I’m sorry, just who exactly is stripping freedoms, human rights, democracy and the rule of law from what the U.S. represents in the world? It wouldn’t happen to be the Democrats who persistently try to take away people’s 2nd Amendment rights, right? It wouldn’t happen to be the Leftist tech giants taking away people’s right to free speech, right? It wouldn’t be Google trying to influence the 2016 election by providing free rides for Hispanics in key states to the polls so that they might vote for Hillary, right? It wouldn’t be the Clinton campaign, John McCain, MI6 agents, the FBI and DOJ working together to write a phony dossier to suggest Trump-Russian collusion, right?
When you look at the Left’s actions during, before and after Trump’s election, you will see that, according to Roger Cohen’s own definition, THEY are the ones gutting America! Donald Trump has been cutting regulations imposed on businesses by the Obama administration, securing that businesses have a little more freedom when it comes to how they manage themselves. He has done wonders for the pro-life group, thus ensuring people inside the womb have the human rights the Left adamantly wants to take away. Regarding democracy, I just have to say that we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional Republic. In a democracy, there is no electoral college and thus, no balance between states in elections.
And if you want to talk about rule of law, just look at the work ICE and border patrol do. They ENFORCE the law. The law that illegals constantly break and the law that the LEFT wants to eliminate.
Scarborough also insists that America is diminishing its position on the global stage under Trump, signifying that he is more dangerous than the 9/11 attacks were.
Are you kidding me? Which President was it that intended for America to take a back seat in the world by "leading from behind"? Which President allowed for a “JV” squad to retake key positions in the Middle East and become a massive threat to Western Civilization? Which President bowed down to every threat by a foreign entity and made empty threats against Syria and Russia? Which President forced us into a ridiculous Climate Change deal that would see us paying for every cost? Which President made a deal with A TERRORIST SPONSOR NATION to give them BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD NUKES? Obama.
Which President has made it his mission to destroy ISIS? Which President has managed to get the little ball of rage in North Korea to agree to denuclearization? Which President has managed to pull out of the aforementioned Climate Change and nuke deals? Trump.
Which President is looking to make fair trade deals with other countries that won’t utterly screw us over?
You see? Trump is doing THE OPPOSITE of what Scarborough says he’s doing or what Roger Cohen is suggesting Trump’s doing. Meaning that either Scarborough is a massive idiot or a massive liar. Not sure which is worse.
Not that I’m surprised, but still.
Comparing Trump to the 9/11 attackers or Hitler or Mussolini or Bin Laden is utterly asinine.
But let’s go down the rabbit hole, shall we?
The September 11 attackers: 1) are dead, 2) are in Hell, 3) were RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS aka the term Obama seems to be allergic to and 4) followed an ideology that seeks to eradicate all opposition, be it through murder or forceful submission and an ideology that seeks to set the world back THOUSANDS of years.
Hitler: 1) is dead, 2) in Hell, 3) was a SELF-ADMITTED SOCIALIST, 4) caused one of the largest massacres of a single group of people the world’s ever seen and 5) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
Mussolini: 1) is dead, 2) in Hell, 3) was a fascist, which, as we know, is AS LEFTIST AS COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM and 4) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
Stalin (yes, I’ve heard comparisons to him as well): 1) is dead (you get the point, I won’t include this more), 2) was a COMMUNIST, 3) ruled his country with an iron fist, eliminating any and all opposition to him.
Bin Laden: (do I even have to say why this is a ludicrous comparison?)
Trump may not be perfect, but he’s a hell of a lot better than any of these bozos by a mile. What these people have in common is not that they are similar to Trump. Quite the opposite, they are more similar to today’s Democrats.
Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all having been Leftists, you can clearly see the comparison. Although regarding Bin Laden, even I won’t try to compare them to him. But not because they are any less evil. It’s just that Bin Laden was not like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Democrats. He was not a ruler of a nation, but rather, of a terrorist organization. He did not seek to rule a country and crush the people with an iron fist, but to spread terror across the world, as well as Sharia Law.
This is why the comparison between Trump and Bin Laden doesn’t even work with the Left’s narrative. Bin Laden was never a world leader. Never a ruler of a country. He was a glorified thug who was absolutely insane and absolutely evil.
But it’s because of that absolute evil that one can more easily compare him with the Left. I’ve said this multiple times, and have recently made it astoundingly clear that the Left is evil.
If any comparisons can be made about anyone, it’s the Left who ought to replace Trump in such conversations. THEY are the ones who support very similar principles and policies. THEY are the ones who, given the chance, would do the same thing to Christians and conservatives as Hitler did to Jews. It might sound a tad extreme, but extremism is the Left’s MO. Just look at today’s world in regards to anything the Left does and I challenge you to find anything less than extremism.
Forcing young girls to endure a grown man using the same restroom? Forcing a Christian baker to bake a gay wedding cake? Forcing Google employees out of their jobs for stating facts the Left doesn’t agree with? Forcing health organizations to declassify gender dysphoria as a mental disease, but classifying video game addiction as a disorder? Forcing the United States’ Department of Justice to conspire against a political candidate the President at the time and Leftist establishment don’t like in order to affect the results of an election and steal people’s vote?
What part of these things is not extreme?
So I do not apologize for saying that the Left would LOVE to send Christians and conservatives to concentration camps. Given that the Left currently is sending us to Facebook and Twitter jail if we express thoughts that do not align with the Left, I wouldn’t be surprised if they wanted to do worse. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, because I have no doubt, given the chance.
So for Scarborough, or any other Leftist, to try to compare Trump with “bad person x” is completely ridiculous. The Left shares far more in common with the horrible dictators of the past than Trump does.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As I mentioned, it’s 100% free of cost, and I won’t lie to you like the Left does when I say something is free. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as direct access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the time that Donald Trump has run and taken office, he has been called a slew of ridiculous names, among which are things like “Hitler” and “Nazi” and such names have even been transferred over to those who support him. However, Trump has done something that both Bush and Obama could have done but didn’t care to do: deport a former Nazi labor camp guard.
According to the Daily Wire: “The Trump administration announced early on Tuesday morning that it had arrested 95-year-old Jakiw Palij – the last known Nazi collaborator living in the United States – at his home in Queens, New York, and deported him to Germany.”
The Office of the Press Secretary released a statement following the arrest and subsequent deportation: “President Trump commends his Administration’s comprehensive actions, especially ICE’s actions, in removing this war criminal from United States soil. Despite a court ordering his deportation in 2004, past administrations were unsuccessful in removing Palij.”
The statement continues: “To protect the promise of freedom for Holocaust survivors and their families, President Trump prioritized the removal of Palij. Through extensive negotiations, President Trump and his team secured Palij’s deportation to Germany and advanced the United States’ collaborative efforts with a key European ally.”
And ABC News reported: “Trump told U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell to make Palij’s deportation his number one priority when he got to Berlin.”
In the statement by the Office of the Press Secretary, there is one particular paragraph that is in larger font than the rest of the statement. This is what it reads: “Palij had lied about being a Nazi and remained in the United States for decades. Palij’s removal sends a strong message: The United States will not tolerate those who facilitated Nazi crimes and other human rights violations, and they will not find a safe haven on American soil.”
The statement also summarizes Palij’s life, having been born in what was at the time Poland but now is part of Ukraine, immigrated to the U.S. in 1949 and became a citizen in 1957. During the process of immigration and naturalization, Palij had hid the fact he was a Nazi SS labor camp guard, saying that he spent the duration of WWII “working on a farm and in a factory.”
The way the U.S. found out he was a Nazi labor camp guard is through a confession by Palij in 2001 to DOJ officials. He trained at the Nazi SS Training Camp in Trawniki, Poland. The same training camp that, according to court documents, trained SS soldiers who participated in “Operation Reinhard”, an op to kill Jews in Poland. The Trawniki camp is also famous for having incarcerated and executed around 6,000 Jewish children, women and men in a single day, November 3rd, 1943. It is known as one of the single largest massacres of the Holocaust.
According to the statement: “In August 2003, a federal judge revoked Palij’s United States citizenship based on his wartime activities, human rights abuses, and postwar immigration fraud. He was ordered deported in 2004, and his administrative appeal was denied in 2005.”
In other words, the request to be deported, despite it having been an order (the statement doesn’t clarify who gave the order in 2004), was denied by someone in the Bush administration for whatever reason.
No other order of deportation was issued by the Bush or Obama administrations and no action was taken to deport Palij, as evident by this week’s events.
Now, Ryan Saavedra of the Daily Wire, upon talking about this subject, opened his article by saying: “It will be interesting to see how CNN and MSNBC spin this.”
In my mind, there are a couple of things that could happen: either the MSM won’t cover it (to be fair, the Manafort trial is a big topic this week, so that will get the bulk of the screen time no matter what) or they will cover it and simply say it’s some form of virtue signaling, with Trump essentially saying to people “how can I be Hitler if I literally just deported a Nazi?” and spin it that way.
Of course, that still wouldn’t work because most people don’t believe the MSM anymore and we can have conversations about how the American Left and the Nazis are basically one and the same, only with different words and different targets for elimination.
The point is that they will either avoid covering it to avoid giving Trump or ICE, the agency that deported Palij, any sort of credit, even if inadvertently, or they will try to say it’s nothing more than virtue signaling. Kind of like whenever some sports star attacks Trump as being racist when 1) there is nothing you can point to that makes him a racist and 2) everyone else on the Left is doing it already and the attack has lost all its meaning and only serves to drive his supporters closer to him.
The difference between the actual virtue signaling of a sports star (or any other celebrity) calling Trump a racist and the “virtue signaling” of Trump deporting a Nazi is that Trump’s actions are more worthwhile than the manure that comes out of celebrities’ mouths.
Successfully extracting a former Nazi labor camp guard from U.S. soil, when both the Bush and Obama administrations had all the opportunity in the world to do, is a far stronger message to send to people than “Trump is a racist because reasons”.
We send the message that those who took part in or helped facilitate the egregious actions of an evil empire of the past are simply not welcome in the United States. If that is the message that the Left wants to own today, that ship has just sailed. Obama could easily have gotten some major props on both sides of the aisle in deporting the former Nazi guard, but was too busy running the country into the ground to do it.
Bush could have also done it but was too busy forging friendships with the establishment and promising to act like a scared kitten whenever Obama blamed anything he was doing wrong on him to do the job (granted, he had less time to do it, but still).
So if the MSM wants to spin it as virtue signaling, they will have to answer the question: “why didn’t Obama or Bush do it, then?” Or at least Obama, since they would then try to fully blame it on Bush and completely avoid the fact that Obama failed to act too.
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Whenever you watch the news, or at least whenever you would watch the news when Obama was President, you could swear that Obama was the greatest thing ever since sliced bread. The way he was portrayed made him look as though he was brilliant, sophisticated and hugely popular. Well, it turns out he was far less popular than we may have thought… even back when he was still Prez.
In a 2014 Quinnipiac poll ranking the best and worst Presidents since World War II, 33% of polltakers ranked Obama as the worst. That is the highest point number, with George W. Bush ranking second worst at 28%.
The third worst President according to the poll was Richard Nixon and the fourth was Jimmy Carter.
In ranking the best Presidents since World War II, Ronald Reagan destroyed all other competition with 35%, with second place being Bill Clinton coming in at 18% and third place being JFK at 15%. Barack Obama only received 8% in the poll.
Interestingly enough, the poll also reported that “45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency,” according to an article on USA Today talking about the poll.
There was a time, before I knew of the establishment and its wickedness, when I thought the country would have been better off with Romney as POTUS instead of Obama. Make no mistake, Obama was the far worse candidate, but Romney would have been only marginally better. He likely would have passed tax reform, but not much else would have been to the benefit of the country.
And this is without taking into consideration that, had Romney won, Trump would have likely not run for President and we might have Hillary in the Oval Office right now, so I would say that, considering our current situation, the country would be worse off with a President Romney.
Of course, I can’t exactly blame people back in 2014 for believing Romney would have been better. Heck, even I thought that back then. But knowing what I know now, as despicable and evil and putrid as Obama was, I’m ok with the 2012 election results. After all, they are partly what brought us the best President we’ve had since Reagan.
Now, the poll didn’t end there. It also handed out grades for Obama on key issues. According to the poll, Obama received negative grades in his handling of the economy (not topping 3% GDP growth in any quarter and rampant unemployment rates will do that), his handling of foreign policy (giving a terrorist nation billions of dollars to secretly forward their nuclear arsenal and bending over backwards to appease a rogue communist dictator will do that), his handling of health care (Obamacare… need I say more?), his handling of the environment (as it turns out, people can’t change the global climate), and his handling of terrorism (allowing a “JV” team to overrun much of the Middle East and have multiple successful acts of terror in our country will do that).
Now, USA Today tries to somewhat excuse these poor numbers for Obama by saying: “Of course, Obama and Bush are the most recent presidents; historians will tell you that it takes decades to truly measure an individual president’s performance.”
That may be true, but when you have a sitting president who is praised to the hills by the media pulling these kinds of numbers, there’s a problem. The article (and consequently, the poll) were released in July of 2014 – before the midterm elections in which Republicans won back Congress. These numbers are indicative of Republican success in the midterms and likely even success in 2016.
Now, I wouldn’t blame you if this is the first time you’re hearing about these numbers. No doubt, the MSM tried their best to hide these numbers since they go against their narrative that Obama is beloved by most, if not all of America and would (at the time) want a Democrat supermajority in Congress and for another Democrat to succeed Obama in 2016.
But these numbers highlight the truth. America hated the job Obama was doing. Granted, this much was evident in the results of the 2016 election, but it’s clear that even back then, people were tired of Obama’s crap. They wanted change and so, in 2014, voted Republican and gave the GOP control of Congress in the hopes that they would do something good. Alas, not much came of that, but the American people refused to roll over and allow Democrats control of the country. But they desperately needed a leader who would stand up for them, fight for them and return the country to its former glory.
They were tired of Obama saying our best days were behind us and that a regressing America was the new normal that we had to get used to. So when Trump came in with the perfect message: Make America Great Again, the people had their new Jupiter Conservator (Parson Weems reference to the exaltation of George Washington; Washington was a hero). In essence and effect, Trump is the anti-Obama that the country needed and voted for.
Of course, the part about Trump is not part of the poll, as it was taken in 2014. That was my current-day take on the results of the poll. The American people did not and do not like Obama or what he was doing to the country. They needed someone who would be entirely different and found that in Trump.
Looking at these results, it’s easy to tell that Obama’s legacy not only will be marred in darkness, but it will also be largely considered to be marred in darkness. He constantly did evil things, passed evil policy, laws and regulation, and secretly formed a shadow government to keep tabs and control of his successor. The American people noticed this (except the shadow government, of course) and hated it.
I just wonder if Quinnipiac will update this survey at some point in the future, perhaps in the middle of Trump’s second term, to see where Trump ranks among these other Presidents in the same questions.
No doubt, he might be remembered as the best President, even better than Reagan, if he does his job well. He’s on track to doing that only a year and a half in as is.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While I tend not to look at too many polls to gauge a candidate’s favorability or people’s views on a certain issue, one poll conducted by YouGov, a market research and data analytics firm, caught my eye with some of the results on the issue of illegal immigration.
The poll was conducted just a few days ago and it polled 1,500 U.S. adults. The poll found that only 19% of those polled favored “releasing the families and having them report back for an immigration hearing at a later date.”
In other words, only 19% of those polled favored the Obama-era policy of “catch and release”.
According to the Daily Wire: “Even among Democrats, only 30% liked the idea, while 33% of Hillary Clinton voters and 36% of self-described ‘liberals’ favored it. Among Independents, just 17% were in favor of catch and release, as were just 16% of moderates. Among Republicans, only 7% backed it, as did only 7% of conservatives and 4% of Trump supporters.”
This tells me something in particular: people didn’t actually like what Obama’s policies were, they just liked them because they were Obama’s. Similarly, I’ve noticed on occasion that when people are asked what they think of a policy enacted by Trump, but were not told it was Trump’s, people tended to favor said policy (of course, depending on what the policy was).
“Catch and Release” is entirely synonymous with Obama and is revered by the fake news media as the policy we should be using (that is until they start heavily demanding open borders, as they might in the coming days and weeks following the charade of “keeping families together”). But when you get down to it, most people, even Democrats, liberals and Clinton voters, do not like the idea of “catch and release”.
The poll provided four particular policies regarding illegal immigration: “catch and release”, “holding families together in detention centers until an immigration hearing at a later date” (which seems to be the one the Trump administration is leaning towards), “arresting the adults, sending them to jail to await a criminal trial and sending any minor children to shelters run by the Department of Health” (the administration’s previous approach), and “arresting both the adults and minor children, sending the adults to jail and the minor children to juvenile detention centers to await a criminal trial”.
I already mentioned “catch and release” and the results of that poll, but the other ones are quite interesting as well.
In regards to “holding families together in detention centers until an immigration hearing at a later date”, this method proved to be the most popular among polltakers, with a total of 44% backing the idea, 49% of Democrats, 39% of Independents, 47% of Republicans, as well as 53% of Clinton voters, 44% of Trump voters, 48% of liberals, 51% of moderates and 43% of conservatives.
Personally, I agree with this idea. The separation of families is a very bad thing, which is why I bash Obama, Bush and especially Clinton over this since this began in 1997 after the Flores case, as I mentioned in my previous article.
Of course, I can’t say I’m surprised at the amount of Democrat voters who support this idea. It’s a little more humane (though the media will certainly try to make it seem just as inhumane as separating families so they can push for open borders and amnesty) and Democrat voters tend to be fooled into thinking Democrats care about anyone other than themselves. But this idea overall seems better than the previous approach. Not to mention that Trump’s EO exposes the Left as frauds since they will say it’s not enough and will push for no prosecution and detainment at all, which exposes this as not being about the kids, but about open borders.
Stupidly enough, the Left believes they can win on the key issue that got Trump elected in the first place and it’s the reason I believe Trump’s EO is the best move to expose the fraudulent Left on this issue.
Regarding Trump’s previous approach of “arresting the adults, sending them to jail to await a criminal trial and sending any minor children to shelters run by the Department of Health”, that proved to be less popular than even “catch and release”. Of the people polled, only 12% supported the idea, with 5% of Democrats supporting it, 12% of Independents, 22% of Republicans, 3% of Clinton voters, 27% of Trump voters, 3% of liberals, 11% of moderates and 25% of conservatives.
Again, not very surprised at these results. It’s not a very popular policy, at least to me, because it was used and created by Democrats. Of course, the media and Democrats try to make it seem as though it’s strictly Trump policy, and many have bought into that b.s. In a perfect world, people would recognize that this policy was created and used by the Left (yes, I’m counting Bush as part of the Left) and bash those who created it and the ones who employed it but had the chance to end it.
Like I said, Obama had the best chance to do this in 2009 when the Democrats owned Congress and the White House. And don’t tell me that that is only 2 years of majority. That is not a good enough excuse. Trump has been in power for less than 2 years and look at what he’s accomplished so far. And that is with a Republican Party that has been UNCOOPERATIVE for much of it and a Democrat Party that has been OBSTRUCTING everything they possibly could. Obama, with total control of Congress, could’ve done far more damage than he actually did. We must thank the good Lord that he wasn’t as effective as Trump is.
Let’s finally move on to the final policy on the poll: “arresting both the adults and minor children, sending the adults to jail and the minor children to juvenile detention centers to await a criminal trial”. Unsurprisingly, only 8% supported this idea, with 2% of Democrats, 7% of Independents, 16% of Republicans, 2% of Clinton voters, 15% of Trump voters, 2% of liberals, 6% of moderates, and 15% of conservatives.
Personally, I also disagree with that idea. It simply seems like too much, particularly for minors. While there very well could be some minors who are close to 18 years old, most are younger children who are dragged to these places by their parents (for some reason) so sending them to juvie over something they really had no control over is a little harsh.
Now, I can also understand the reasoning behind some conservatives on issues like these. I agree with the idea that we should take care of our own children first, our own homeless people first, our own citizens first. That is part of the reason I voted for Trump, to put America, and thus, Americans, first. Any nation that prioritizes the citizens of another country over their own citizens is a nation that is doomed to be reshaped at best and utterly destroyed at worst.
But it makes sense that this last method is so unpopular.
Now, these were not the only things tracked by the poll. Among many other things such as Trump’s handling of North Korea, people’s view on certain countries as allies or enemies and their opinions on the FBI, the poll asked “Do you think the policy of separating parents arrested for crossing the border into the United States without proper documentation from their minor children will or will not discourage immigrants from crossing the border illegally?”
In other words, is family separation a deterrent of illegal border crossing? A total of 34% said that it is, with 38% saying no and 28% being unsure. Personally, I don’t think it’s a deterrent whatsoever. Think of it this way: families are attempting to illegally cross the border in at least 80 degree heat on a good day, risking capture and deportation, risking separating themselves in the trip alone, risking heatstroke and dehydration (and other things that threaten their lives). If they are willing to go through that, I can’t see how being separated by the government can seem like much of a deterrent.
The only effective deterrent of illegal immigration is a border wall and more security. We need to make it almost entirely impossible for anyone to cross the border illegally. People might be able to climb a fence, but unless they are Spider-Man, they can’t climb a 20 to 30 ft. wall.
Now, looking at these results overall, it tells me that people still tend to side with Trump on immigration issues. If even Hillary voters and registered Democrats heavily disapprove of “catch and release”, what honest-to-God hope do they have to winning in the midterms? Especially on the biggest issue that got Trump elected? Pushing for amnesty and open borders didn’t work in 2016, so what makes them think it will work now? The way they see Trump isn’t the way the majority of the country sees Trump.
“But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
George Soros knows very well that, in order to OWN America, you have to OWN the DNC. And in order to OWN the DNC you must OWN the Clintons. Please don’t forget this premise as you read on…
The IG report that was made public last week reveals a huge number of interesting evidence about the swamp – it confirms Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were biased against Trump. It confirms that ‘we’ in the FBI ‘will stop Trump’ from becoming President – and ‘we’ has to be a group of people CONSPIRING at the FBI. It confirms that then FBI director James Comey broke protocol with one end in mind: to exonerate Hillary from any crime. In doing so, Comey himself may have broken the law by adding to the law something that it doesn’t require in the Hillary case: intent. I think we can all agree that Page, Strzok, Comey, Hillary and all the rest broke the law – and our trust. These were people in positions of power who used that power to benefit themselves and a particular presidential candidate. Hillary herself was way too senior in the Obama Administration not to know that she was breaking the law when she decided to keep an illegal, unprotected server for official business.
Let’s let lady Justice deal with these actors – I have a feeling that somebody will end up in jail over all of this.
But let’s focus on Obama for a moment. We know that Obama lied when he said he learnt about the illegal server when the media reported it and not before. We know it’s a lie because the IG report says that Obama himself was using an alias to write to Hillary when she was the Secretary of State on her numerous email addresses – he, too, was using unofficial Hillary email addresses to conduct official businesses and that’s a crime. So we know that a Hillary criminal investigation would have led to Obama himself and he could not afford it.
Now, let’s talk about the premise of the headline: Was Obama trying to OWN Hillary?
We all know that NOBODY in the Obama Administration back in 2016 thought Trump was going to win. Obama never in a million years thought he could be the target of an investigation – it’s the reason he let Hillary keep that illegal server. Nobody in the Obama Administration thought any of this would come to light.
So, with this in mind, let’s go back to the Comey press conference in October 2016 when he announced the FBI had found 30,000 new emails on the ‘Hillary matter’ that they would investigate, only to announce a couple of days later that there was no intent on the part of Hillary and therefore no ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would indict. Why would he do this, knowing that in May of that year the FBI had decided not to pursue Hillary? They knew all along Hillary was not to be touched. Why would he open and close the investigation like this in October of 2016? And why wouldn’t he just do his job and present the evidence to the DOJ? I’ve heard analysts say it was Comey’s ego that caused him to be on the spotlight, or Hillary may have threatened him and that’s why he closed the investigation and all sorts of reasons why he chose against prosecuting her, even when he didn’t have the power to do that as FBI director.
Well, I have another theory….let me explain.
Obama had already indicated in April 2016 that 'I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America's national security,' in an interview on 'Fox News Sunday.' He added 'What I've also said is that -- and she has acknowledged -- that there's a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she ... recognizes.' So Comey was just following orders: Hillary was just...'careless'.
Now, if you want to OWN America, you must OWN the DNC. And Obama doesn’t own the DNC…yet. He knows this perfectly well – if he’s going to put his own friends in office, he must NEUTRALIZE the Clintons sooner rather than later. Right now, the DNC is divided – and the Clintons have way too many friends for Obama’s liking. For a long time I thought Obama would throw Hillary under the bus on this email case just to get the Clintons out of the way and become the king of the DNC. But now I think he had a better plan…
I think Obama decided that neutralizing the Clintons doesn’t necessarily mean finishing them off politically – it means keeping their skeletons in the closet and owning them personally, like mobsters do. I think Comey was trying to convey the message that, once Hillary was inaugurated, she’d have to thank Obama for her freedom and presidency. And Obama holds the key to her future. She better continue with his legacy or else…
Let’s not forget that Obama is used to Chicago politics – these people are not like you and me. They’re mobsters. And speaking of mobsters, there’s one story in The Godfather Part II that explains what may have happened here (clip at the bottom).
You see, in The Godfather II, there’s this character, Senator Pat Geary, that opposes Michael Corleone, the head of the mobster family. The Senator knows Corleone is a criminal and he wants to find ways to bring him to justice. Corleone needs politicians, law enforcement agents and senior leaders on his payroll in order to conduct his illegal business freely. And this Senator is in his way. What was Corleone’s brilliant plan? To ambush the Senator: the Corleone gangsters find a prostitute for the Senator, who they then kill but making it look like the Senator did it. The Senator had been drugged somehow and he doesn’t even remember what happened to the girl – he thinks he must have killed her, given the evidence. But the Godfather’s saviors come to the rescue and protect the Senator from public shame and jail. The end objective was to OWN the Senator, which they managed to do by PROTECTING him from being INDICTED over a CRIME.
With Hillary it’s the same – except she did commit the crime. So Obama’s objective was to OWN the next President by sending Comey to close the email case to PROTECT Hillary from being INDICTED over a CRIME.
Perhaps that’s the reason the IG didn’t find documented evidence of political bias – Comey and Obama weren’t just rooting for Hillary out of love for her. This was about WHO was going to OWN the DNC…and the country.
'But the LORD abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.'
Author: Danielle Cross
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...