When you think about it, that title really is an oddity. For any Leftist to worry about the millennial generation voting Republican in the future is rather stunning. But why does Phillip Reines, former Hillary Clinton advisor, worry that millennials might vote more for Republicans in the future? Short answer: tax cuts.
At a panel with the Washington Center, Phillip said that he doesn’t “know how millennials think… It’s unclear what will get them going… Someone like Sanders and Warren seem to tap into that… But you can’t just assume that people last year (2016 election) would’ve gotten what Hillary Clinton got and add it on to it… But I think millennials have to, they more than anyone, have to say this is not normal and there’s a lot of pressure to shut up… Donald Trump and his people want everyone to shut up, get over the election, Hillary Clinton go away. That’s in their best interest. But that’s not how it works. We’re supposed to oppose what we disagree with. And I hope millennials don’t fall into a lull of accepting this is what it is. God knows how many will see their taxes go down and base it just on that… They are a key demographic that voted oddly in 2016… I’m not sure that people understand how to get them to vote productively in 2020.”
Ok, that’s an awful lot to talk about.
Let’s go step by step. First, of course he doesn’t know how millennials think. He himself is not a millennial. But he’s right in saying that someone like Sanders and Warren seem to tap into that. Sanders and Warren know (at least to a decent extent) how millennials think. The way millennials think, unfortunately, is very much socialistic. They want everything to be free, not want to work for anything and want things to just be given to them.
Millennials want to be taken care of by their parents for as long as they live. But since parents can’t do that, that’s where the state comes in. I remember Mark Zuckerberg giving a speech to a graduating class at Harvard. In that speech he talked about how everyone should have a fixed income no matter what, even if they don’t have a job. That the government should just give people money for living.
I don’t think I have to go into too much detail on why that’s a very stupid idea, but to millennials, that’s a great idea! They don’t consider the economic consequences of such an idea. They just want free money for doing nothing. No nation can afford to do that and survive. Moreover, no CIVILIZATION can afford to do that. If no one works, nothing gets done. If you’re going to get paid for doing nothing, you might as well do nothing.
Society was made by people who DID stuff. If no one worked anymore, no more iPhones would be made, no servers would be maintained, there’d be no running water, no electricity. Millennials, if you want to know a sure-fire way to actually kill the internet, it’s not through repealing Net Neutrality. It’s through no work being done by anyone.
But ideas like those sound good to millennials because they can’t really be bothered to think too hard about it. Without a doubt, if there’s any Deadly Sin that plagues the millennial generation, it’s sloth.
Second, he says that millennials have to understand that this (I’m presuming, world) is not normal. That “there’s a lot of pressure to shut up.” And that “Donald Trump and his people want everyone to shut up, get over the election, Hillary Clinton go away.”
I would like to respond by saying that no one is pressuring anyone to shut up, especially Trump. Doing so would call for a violation of people’s first amendment rights, which is why he doesn’t do that. Wanna know who pressures people to shut up? The Left. They pressure Christians to shut up about God. Pressure conservatives to shut up about how great our country is.
I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen or watched a story about a kid somewhere in the country being ordered by teachers to take off a shirt with the American flag on it because it’s “offensive”. And don’t get me started with college students and their “safe zones”. Every time someone mentions Donald Trump in a college campus, the kids will begin to freak out and run to the “safe zone” to be away from things that “could severely impact someone’s mental health.” No joke, I’ve seen that b.s. excuse thrown around to protect these children.
And yes, I call them children despite the fact that I, myself, am 21 years old and college-aged.
But Donald Trump most certainly does not pressure anyone to shut up.
Phillip mentions getting over the election. To which I say, yes, we have told people to do that. Why? Because there’s no point in still being upset about it anymore! Sure, just after the election, I can’t blame any liberal for being upset about the results. But after A WHOLE YEAR?! If people haven’t gotten over the election results yet, they have some serious problems to deal with. Even the Russia probe has lost almost all traction.
I was upset about the 2012 election results for a week at the most.
And about Hillary Clinton going away, Phillip couldn’t be more wrong. I, for one, LOVE IT whenever Hillary Clinton makes any sort of public appearance. Why? Because she’s essentially a ghost haunting the Democrat Party. She’s a candidate the Democrat Party wants to forget. Even they realize Hillary is far too much of a liability for them to still support unabashedly.
I don’t want Hillary Clinton to go away simply because she always manages to make the Democrat Party look bad. And if there’s anyone I can say has any right to still be upset about the election, it’s her.
Next, he talks about opposing what you disagree with. Ironically, I actually agree with him on this. I wanted the GOP to oppose Obama on everything he did, but they barely even tried. I don’t expect the Democrats to simply back down.
Then, he talks about hoping millennials don’t fall into a lull of accepting this is what it is. Now what does he mean by that? That he hopes millennials won’t just accept the results of the election? Quite possibly. But one thing comes to mind that could also be a strong possibility.
He doesn’t want millennials to think this Make America Great Again campaign is normal for the country. He doesn’t want them to think there’s any chance of making America great. With ISIS being almost entirely defeated, the Dow Jones at record-highs, a tax cut that benefits nearly everyone and massive drops in unemployment rates, these are things that are not normal to millennials.
Us millennials didn’t get to experience the Reagan years. Many of us were born in the 90s, when Bill was President. We grew up in the 90s and 2000s. Those were our childhood years. Children tend not to pay too much attention to the world. For many of us, Obama’s America was normal. And that’s saying a lot.
For us, difficulty getting jobs was normal. A declining economy was normal. America getting disrespected by both Americans and non-Americans was normal. We truly believed that America’s best days were behind her. And I think Phillip wants millennials to continue believing Obama’s America is normal, not Trump’s.
And he clearly shows that he’s afraid millennials will see a new standard of normalcy with Trump’s presidency. He’s worried that the tax cuts letting them keep more of their money will lead them to vote more Republican.
Personally, I don’t know about that. I’m not going to raise my hopes and believe they will start voting more Republican (or at least more conservative). Like I said, my generation is more socialistic. One piece of legislation like tax reform won’t do that much. Millennials tend to believe the Left, which is a scary thought. If the Left claims credit for millennials keeping more of their money, millennials might believe them.
If millennials don’t think too hard about the consequences of a fixed income for everyone, they likely won’t think too hard about who they should thank for them having more money.
I might be a bit too harsh about my generation, but they’ve barely given me any reason to have high hopes for them. Although, one thing is for certain: millennials are a wildcard.
During high school, I’ve met some millennials (not a lot) that are rather socialistic but, funny enough, support the 2nd Amendment and the troops. That revelation stunned me. I would’ve expected these millennial classmates of mine to be full-on socialistic, particularly on issues like guns and our troops.
Of course, these are rather individual cases. I’ve met just as many millennials who are opposed to guns entirely. But these classmates have made me think that this generation isn’t all that different from previous ones. Each individual has their own opinion and beliefs.
What I’m trying to say is that not all is lost with my generation. We’re an odd bunch, but there’s some hope for us yet. The very fact that I myself believe and know these things, that I’m a Christian conservative, gives me hope for the future.
The Left has done a lot of damage to my generation. It’s up to us, conservatives of all ages, to reverse that damage as much as we can.
“We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord, and His might, and the wonders that He has done.”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
I believe I’ve mentioned before how the Left has absolutely no sense of humor. Apparently, that extends to waste-of-time hypotheticals like “what would happen to the Earth if superheroes were real?”
The Washington Post, funny enough, actually has published TWO articles regarding superheroes in real life. One of the articles talks about the cost of commuting if the heroes didn’t have powers but still went everywhere they went in their recent film adaptations (although that kinda defeats the purpose of them being called “superheroes” if they have no powers).
But we’ll be focusing on the second of these articles. The one that actually would blame superheroes for causing damage to Earth by simply EXISTING! Yep, it’s not enough that they blame humanity for climate change. They also have to blame superheroes in this hypothetical.
The article is titled: “Superheroes might save the world, but they’d totally wreck the environment”.
The author of the article talks about some research done by Miles Traer, a Stanford University geologist, and two of his colleagues.
“Traer and two colleagues have calculated the carbon footprint for nine heroes from the comic book canon – and realized that Earth might be better off if they stopped trying to save it,” reads the article.
Yeah, it’s better for the world to be under the control of the Legion of Doom than for the superheroes to supposedly damage the Earth fighting the supervillains, I guess.
“Barbara Gordon, the computer wizard also known as Oracle (or more commonly known: Batgirl), is by far the worst offender: Even if her servers ran on a combination of clean energy sources – nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind and geothermal – running them would still release more than 1.3 billion pounds of carbon dioxide per year.”
“But Gordon’s DC Comics associates are hardly better. To run at the speed of light, the Flash would need to consume [around 60 billion] calories per second – the rough equivalent of a 12-foot tall hamburger every week. That adds up to nearly 90 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Meanwhile, flying alone would require Batman to burn the fossil fuel equivalent of 344 plane rides from New York to San Francisco.”
Look, I won’t waste my time debating these figures. I’m not a comic book nerd and so I can’t really debate these with facts and information that I usually present with other topics. But I’m not here to do that. This article isn’t about debating the logic (or lack thereof) of the “realistic” consequences of having these superheroes. This article is about demonstrating just how dull and lacking in any sense of humor the Left is.
Aside from flat out wasting your time calculating how much Batman screws the Earth with his Batmobile, this also takes all the fun away from a hero such as Batman.
Almost all kids (mostly boys) play superheroes. I used to own a Batman costume when I was younger and would often play with my best friend who would play another version of Batman. I wasn’t exactly worried about the implications of using the Batmobile or the Batplane (is that what it’s called?) would have on the Earth. I wouldn’t imagine myself using these vehicles and having them run on corn or something more “eco-friendly”.
So thinking about these implications not only are a waste of time, but they also make Batman and other superheroes less fun.
I look at these superheroes as sources of entertainment. I don’t rack my brain thinking about just how much damage they do to the environment. I think of the Flash as a guy that runs very, very fast. Not as someone who needs to eat a king’s feast worth of food to function.
But the Left, being the massive killers of fun that they are, can’t help but to waste their time saying that these heroes would quickly kill the Earth. Not just that, but they even make suggestions. Of the Flash, they say that “by going vegetarian, the Flash could reduce his emissions from 90 million pounds of carbon dioxide to just 3 million.” Of Batman: “If Bruce Wayne stopped spending money on Batman gear, he could pay for carbon offsets for the entire population of downtown Chicago.”
And here’s possibly the most Leftist part of the entire article: “The implied message: If a masked vigilante with too much money and a shortage of good judgment can redeem himself, you can, too.”
THERE IT IS! There’s the Leftist message this article was missing! Not only did they make these heroes less fun, but they also point the blame to real people. First, there’s no such thing as an individual having “too much money”. But of course, being a Leftist, this writer is insanely jealous of A FICTIONAL BEING and believe he shouldn’t have the money that he has.
Second, I love how she (the writer of the article is a woman) also believes we have to redeem ourselves of anything to do with the climate. How very Leftist of her.
She just has to remind you that you have “a hand in destroying the planet and have done next to nothing to redeem yourself of this horrendous crime against nature.”
But it’s not just the writer of the article that points the blame to people. The researcher does as well.
“’In learning how to make this better’ – Traer points to a circle on his poster (yes, they made a poster of this joke of a research work) illustrating the carbon footprint of the Flash’s hamburger-based diet – ‘we can learn how to make this better’ – he points to a much smaller circle representing the footprint of an average American: 44,093 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.”
I just love how the scientist attempts to justify the work put into this research by saying if we learn how to make the Flash more eco-friendly, we can learn how to make ourselves more eco-friendly.
Mr. Scientist, make no mistake, this research is a massive waste of time that only takes the fun out of superheroes. No one honestly cares that Batman would essentially destroy the planet with his fuel consumption if he were real. I think people would honestly be more excited if there was a real-life Batman.
And let’s not forget that there’s really no bigger enemy of the planet than the Left. May I remind you that Obama made a climate change video while aboard Air Force One? May I remind you that “eco-friendly” Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore have MASSIVE carbon footprints themselves? The funny thing about that is that the Left even EXCUSES them because they’re climate change advocates… kinda like they excused Harvey Weinstein for 30 years of sexual assault because he was a feminist activist and Democrat Party donor.
If the Left wants to point the finger at anyone, it should be themselves. If they want people to start living a certain way, they themselves should be living the lifestyle they demand we have.
It’s part of the reason I don’t consider people like Bernie Sanders and just about everyone on the Left to be true socialists. They preach about socialism yet they live like the very capitalists they claim to hate.
Bernie Sanders is an “open socialist” who constantly tells us we have to be like Venezuela while at the same time he is the proud owner of FOUR HOMES! He’s not a socialist, he’s a hypocritical moron with no knowledge of economics. A socialist in ideology only and not in practice.
The point is that these people may make claims all day long, but they are in fact more responsible for “destroying the Earth”, as they say, than the average American. If they truly want Americans to live a certain way, they have to begin with themselves.
Bernie Sanders clearly has “too much money”, so he should sell, or better yet, donate, three of his homes to people in need. Nancy Pelosi clearly has “too much money” since she has to pay SIX mortgages, the cheapest of which is a mortgage of at least $250,000, according to Red State. The Clintons clearly have “too much money” since they have amassed around $240 million since leaving the White House in 2001, according to Forbes.
All of them Leftists in thought and capitalists in practice (in personal finance, at least).
Yet another example of Leftist hypocrisy, wouldn’t you agree?
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Author: Freddie Drake Marinelli.
I’m almost tempted to make a bingo card of Leftist men who have recently been exposed for sexually assaulting at least one woman. Seriously, firing after firing, allegation after allegation, ousting after ousting, the Left seems to be getting demolished as time goes on.
The most recent Leftist to have been exposed as a sexual assaulter is Matt Lauer, who has been fired from NBC for credible allegations of sexual assault made against him.
An article written on PageSix.com is titled: “Matt Lauer allegedly sexually assaulted staffer during Olympics.”
“Matt Lauer allegedly sexually assaulted a female NBC staffer during the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014.”
And one of the more interesting parts of this story is the fact that Matt Lauer’s victim complained to NBC’s Human Resources department about the assault. Usually, women call out their attackers very publicly. In this intriguing new environment of women exposing sexual assaulters, this is the first time I’m hearing that the victim either hasn’t come forward publicly or refuses to do so.
Of course, I can understand her decision not to publicly do that. There’s personal repercussions that come with informing the public that you’ve been assaulted. But it’s interesting that in this particular case, the woman chose to remain anonymous, at least for the time being.
Regardless, the article continues: “An NBC insider said Lauer’s alleged victim complained to HR on Monday: ‘This happened so quickly. She didn’t go to the media, she made a complaint to NBC’s human resources, and her evidence was so compelling that Matt was fired on Tuesday night. The victim says she has evidence that this has also happened to other women, but so far we don’t have evidence of that.’”
Perhaps another rather interesting part of the article is that they write: “Lauer’s firing comes amid rumors that several news outlets were working on stories about his alleged sexual misconduct. Reporters for the New York Times had been investigating Lauer for several weeks, according to sources who had been contacted by the paper, CNN reported.”
What exactly does that tell you? It tells me that the reason Lauer was fired in the first place isn’t simply because of the evidence presented to NBC’s HR department by the victim. Another reason, seemingly, is that other news outlets were investigating him on his sexual misconduct and “working on stories” about it.
Does that mean that NBC would’ve kept Lauer on their staff if other news outlets hadn’t been working on stories about him? That if the woman had been the only person to even bring up what he did that NBC wouldn’t have fired him?
Maybe, or maybe not. Regardless, we move on to NBC News Chairman Andy Lack’s statement on Lauer’s firing: “On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. It represented, after serious review, a clear violation of our company’s standards. As a result, we’ve decided to terminate his employment. While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over twenty years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident…”
Wait, wait, wait. “We were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident?” But the aforementioned NBC insider said “the victim says she has evidence that this has also happened to other women, but so far we don’t have evidence of that.”
If Andy Lack has reason to believe more women were assaulted by Lauer, doesn’t that mean he has sufficient evidence for such reasoning? There’s a bit of a contradiction, don’t ya think? Either they have enough evidence to at least have reason to believe Lauer assaulted more than just that initial woman or they DON’T have enough evidence that he assaulted more than just one woman.
Which is the truth? I don’t know. But I’ll tell you, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more women that have been victimized by Lauer. In every high-profile sexual assault case we’ve seen in recent time, there’s always been more than just one woman. Even in the Roy Moore case.
Of course, we know the Roy Moore case is entirely b.s., but you get the point. There’s usually more than just one woman.
Now, why do I say I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more women in this case? Two reasons. First, because of a little bit of information that the Page Six article divulges: “His wife, Annette, famously filed for divorce in 2006, accusing him of ‘cruel and inhumane’ behavior, but withdrew the filing a month later after they reached a private agreement. They ostensibly live separate lives – she lives full time in the Hamptons with their children, while Matt resides in the city during the week.”
Now, back in 2006, I wasn’t paying much attention to the world around me, so forgive me for learning this only now. But the claim his wife made is rather troubling. “Cruel and inhumane” behavior? If that’s true, I feel sorry for Annette and her children.
The second reason I wouldn’t be surprised if more women are victims of Lauer is simply because of what Lauer is: a Leftist.
I’ve said this time and time again, but the Left is among the biggest threat to women in the world. The very fact that the Left has no morals or values is what endangers women the most. The Left respects no one and treats everyone equally poorly.
According to Hillsdale College, Winston Churchill said: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” in 1948. And in 1945, he said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Under socialism, everyone is equally miserable. This misery extends past financial wealth. The Left is socialist. And they’re the ones doing these things to multiple women. They have no good values or morals. They see people not as people but as opportunities.
They saw Obama as an opportunity to elect the first black President. They see women as an opportunity to advance their feminist agenda, while simultaneously getting closer (a bit too close) to women who believe their b.s. They see gay people as an opportunity to further drive us to immorality and sin. They see transgenders as an opportunity to do very much the same thing now that gay marriage is the law of the land and the Left has to be angry about something.
They see black people as victims of a racist past they never lived through. As victims of a racist past that the Left themselves are responsible for yet claim no responsibility for it.
The Left is entirely devoid of morals. Of values. Their hearts are filled with sin. There’s a reason Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins. It’s one of the major ones that billions of people commit and too often don’t repent for.
I often say that evil fills the hearts of the Left. Lust is considered a part of said evil. That’s why I’m not surprised that all these Leftists have done horrible things to multiple women. What surprises me is the courage many of these women have to expose these Leftists.
I can tell you, I didn’t think something like this would happen. And certainly not at this magnitude. It’s truly incredible to see these Leftists be exposed. The Left usually protects their own people, but it seems that’s not entirely the case. While they still protect the likes of Al Franken, John Conyers, Bob Menendez and whoever else in Congress who’s a Democrat has been accused of sexual assault, they are seemingly leaving members of the media in the dust.
Just last week Charlie Rose was fired from his network for the very same thing. Kevin Spacey was fired from his Netflix show “House of Cards” and the original domino, Harvey Weinstein, was fired from the very company he co-founded.
I don’t know what the reason is for these Leftists’ careers being basically obliterated, but I will certainly thank God for these unrepentant sinners being punished for their sins.
America’s justice system may not be perfect, but God’s justice system certainly is.
“When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
As you prepare for Thanksgiving today, hopefully you will remember that the celebration is about Thanking God for all the blessing you've received this year. And you will most likely remember, from your school years, what your teachers taught you about the holiday. That story you were told is the official version of the Thanksgiving story. But there's another one - the TRUE version - that no Hollywood producer and no tax-payer funded school will ever teach you: the Pilgrim's transition from socialism to capitalism.
That's right - the true story of Thanksgiving is the LESSON that the Pilgrims had to learn - the hard way - on how to govern themselves.
The official story of Thanksgiving, the one that is taught in school, says absolutely nothing about socialism. And it should, as socialism is the reason half the Pilgrims died. Socialism was first tried in the American continent by the pilgrims - it was an experiment. And it was a complete disaster. And yet, for reasons I don't understand, this experiment is still being tried today - in this country, by virtue of the massive government expansion over the last 70 years and in the rest of the world.
The official story of thanksgiving simply indicates that in the autumn of 1621, the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag gathered to celebrate the colony's first successful harvest.
Generally, school teachers tell you that this Indian tribe taught the Pilgrims how to catch eel and grow corn, and that the success of the Pilgrims' first harvest was the direct result of Indians teachings.
But this story is not quite accurate - it's missing the most important part: how the Pilgrims dropped socialism and subsequently adopted the free market system that ultimately made America GREAT.
In order to understand the true story of Thanksgiving, we have to go back in history a little.
You see, the Church of England, under King James I, was persecuting everyone who didn't recognize the Church's absolute authority. The punishment for those who challenged its authority was imprisonment and, sometimes, death.
A group of separatists decided to emigrate - landing first in Holland to establish a community.
After 11 years, about 40 of them decided to embark on a dangerous journey to the New World.
We have to remember, these were very religious people, who left their home country so that they could worship God as they pleased, without risking their lives. The main reason they left Europe was to find a place where they could worship God freely.
In their hearts, such long and dangerous journey to America was similar to the Israelites' journey to the Promised Land. Much like the Israelites, the Pilgrims never doubted that they would make it. They trusted God...
Once in the New World, the first winter was devastating - half the Pilgrims died of starvation, including the colony's governor William Bradford's wife.
That's when the Indians came in to help the Pilgrims - and this is the part of the story we've all been taught.
What follows is the part that is omitted from history textbooks - the part that the left doesn't want you to know.
The first economic system implemented in the Colony was what we would now call socialism.
You see, before the Pilgrims left England, they signed a contract which seemed fair and stipulated that they were to pool, for the common benefit 'all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons' for 7 years, during which time colonists were to 'have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of the common stock of the said colony'
Once they arrived in the New World, they implemented the system per the contract they had signed - but in the first winter half the people died as a direct result of this system. The problem with it is the same problem we see today in socialist countries: people didn't put too much effort laboring the common land and as a result, output wasn't enough to feed all of them.
Socialism killed half the Pilgrims.
Governor Bradford realized the 'commune' system didn't work - he wrote the experiment 'was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense'.
He recognized that this form of collectivism was destructive to them - as the first harsh winter had proven. Half the people weren't carrying their weight - they didn't have to.
Bradford realized the system, which we now call Socialism, produced LACK.
What did Bradford do?
He scrapped socialism... permanently.
He assigned a plot of land to each family to manage, thus introducing for the first time what we now know as free enterprise - capitalism.
Now, with the capitalistic principle of private property, there was incentive to work - now there was...abundance.
Bradford and the pilgrims realized it was the new system, which we now call Capitalism, that produced ABUNDANCE
Abundance that the free market system enabled, and that they then shared with the Indians - to give thanks to God for their safety and discovery of the new system, and thanks to the Indians for their help.
2 Corinthians 4:15
'All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people, may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God'
Author: Danielle Cross
Charlie Gard, an 11-month old British baby, has been sentenced to die. His only crime? Being too sick. Charlie’s lawyer was APPOINTED – yes! appointed! – by the British government. And you know what? ‘His’ lawyer supports assisted dying. Legally speaking, the lawyer is the guardian of the baby – and he supports euthanasia and is ready to kill Charlie. With friends like these...
You probably have heard of this case: the little boy has a terminal disease and the doctors where he’s hospitalized have decided spending more of the Queen's resources on him is a waste of money, so they want to switch his ventilator off – the machine that keeps the baby alive.
Obviously, these doctors indicate that killing Charlie is in Charlie’s best interest – if you can believe that. But like all arrogant leftists, they don’t speak about killing the baby – they speak about just letting him die ‘with dignity’...
But whose baby is Charlie anyway?
Would you accept my decision as to what to do with your baby? Would you accept a lawyer’s decision or even a doctor’s decision? Opinions? Yes. But DECISIONS? NO WAY!
As you probably know, Charlie has been granted residence in the US should the royal supreme courts in the UK allow him to be transferred to a US hospital for experimental treatment. His parents also have the money to pay for that treatment. Now, the parents have given up and Charlie will be left to die. Why? Because the UK's government determination to KILL THIS BABY has resulted in now being too late to save the little boy. The irony is, should Charlie have been allowed to come to the US, the British hospital wouldn’t have had to spend any more money on Charlie – and he would have been given a chance to live.
But did Charlie’s doctors agree with this strategy?
Nooooo! They’re way too arrogant! They want this boy DEAD!
Can you imagine the INTERNATIONAL embarrassment they’d be put through should the treatment in the US have been successful? These doctors have reputations to protect! Although, in my book, that ship has sailed…
How about the UK Supreme courts? Do the Judges agree?
So far, judges have been eager to KILL this baby because, let’s face it, they’re arrogant too!
Big government tends to think they own you – you and your children. There is not one leftist out there who doesn’t think the government should be allowed to kill you – whether it’s the communist regime in North Korea, which kills the opposition, or a more ‘civil’ socialist government like in the UK, which is certain it’s their right to STOP your child from accessing healthcare in the US so that he might live.
Big government spits in your face: ‘so you want to live? You want to go to the US and save yourself or your child? NO WAY! You’ll die because I say so’.
What these doctors and judges should have said is this: ‘we’re sorry we can't help you, Charlie, but if your parents want to give you another chance, please go to the US, angel, and we’ll pray for you’. THAT is the attitude they should have – after all, Charlie is one of their own…
Why do these doctors and judges do these things? Where is all of this coming from?
Evil, that’s where it’s coming from.
Loving individuals HELP people, particularly INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Anyone who wants to KILL CHILDREN is EVIL, pure and simple. There is no other possible explanation.
Now, this is nothing new – and let’s not forget that in America alone more than 55 million babies have been killed since Roe v Wade. This is, of course, evil too. So let's not pretend we're awesome, because we're not.
But evil has targeted children for thousands of years – since Moses! In the Bible, Pharaoh instructed midwives to kill all male newborns, but Moses' mom put him in a basket on a river to save his life. And Herod, during Jesus’ time, ordered the killing of all male children in Bethlehem who were two years old or under, because he wanted to kill baby Jesus. So as you can see, children are a KEY TARGET of evil.
And Charlie’s a problem of big government, which is always evil. In my mind, only the parents have the right to decide what’s best for their child. Dying is in nobody’s best interest, no matter how badly the left attempts to sugarcoat it.
If Charlie had been allowed to come to the US for therapy, what’s the worst that could have happened? He could have died, but at least, the parents and doctors would have done EVERYTHING within their power to save him – which is every doctor’s and parent’s obligation. Right now, nobody with decision making power in the UK, aside from his parents, has had any interest in saving this boy.
Why do citizens allow governments to own their own children? At which point are citizens in the UK and everywhere in the world where these things happen going to STOP and THINK how much FREEDOM they’re allowing their big governments to take away? What will it take for the rest of us to realize there’s still right and wrong in this world and that the government should NOT be allowed to make YOUR DECISIONS, particularly LIFE AND DEATH decisions?
Obamacare was DESIGNED to do exactly this: put your life and death decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. Look at Charlie – this is your child under Obamacare. This is YOU when you get too old and the system needs to ration healthcare as the UK is doing in Charlie’s case. This is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE at work!
But it all starts by delegating TOO MUCH OF OUR POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Charlie’s problem is socialized medicine.
Whose baby is it anyway?
The UK government’s…
God save the Queen…
Let's pray for Charlie and for people around the world to identify the evil around us...and FIGHT it.
‘Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.’
Author: Danielle Cross
As we all know, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election of 2017. This man was the socialist champion for the American Left, running against someone who is essentially the female version of Trump (as much as that is possible knowing how many socialists there are in France anyway). The Left is super ecstatic over this win, but not because Macron won. More so, because Le Pen lost.
Bernie Sanders tweeted “Congratulations to the people of France who today, by an overwhelming vote, rejected racism and xenophobia.” Crazy Bernie sees the election results and the first thing he says isn’t a congratulatory message to the winner, but a message to the people of France for beating what leftists consider “racism and xenophobia”. Macron doesn’t matter to them, all that matters is that the right-wing candidate lost. Because they really needed a win, and they really wanted it to be against Trump, so this will have to do.
The Left will probably make this whole thing to be a far bigger deal than it really is. They will likely talk about it for about a week and then stop covering it and basically forget about it. Meanwhile, it’s been half a year since Trump destroyed Hillary and they’re still recovering from that.
France, unlike the U.S., is not a super power in the world. It has little to do around the world. This election won’t affect the world so much, unless it pulls out of the E.U., which, thanks to this new president, they definitely won’t. But to the Left, this is almost equal to Hillary beating Trump. They really want to savor this small victory for as long as they possibly can until they return to being completely miserable and reminded that they lost to a candidate they considered to be an absolute joke.
But looking directly at France, I have to say, I feel sorry for these people. They, by making this terrible mistake, have voted for the same socialist policies that they despised from the previous president. The previous president of France had a 4% approval rating by the end of 2016, which explains why he didn’t run again. The French clearly disliked what he has done, but were deceived into voting for more of it with Macron. Macron isn’t of the Socialist party, unlike the outgoing president. Macron founded his own party: En Marche! Which translates to Forward! By the name of the party, you can tell that he’s a progressive, which means he’s a socialist.
Now, here’s the thing: France isn’t America. France wasn’t founded on the principle of freedom from oppression and persecution for Christian beliefs. Much like the Spaniards and British, the French were conquerors in the American continent. They were trying to accomplish the same thing as the Brits and Spaniards: conquering America. France is no different from other European countries, in that it was founded centuries and centuries ago. America’s founding was special. Being founded under Christian beliefs and building a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and maintain it for this long is special.
Therefore, France is not as likely to elect a Trump-like candidate, or even a Reagan-like candidate. There just aren’t any. France has lived under socialism for quite a while now, not just since this president (Macron) or the previous. From absolute monarchy to emperorship to socialism, France has no experience with small government like we do.
But the fact of the matter remains: Macron was the worse candidate for France. Unlike Le Pen, he is more than happy to keep France in the Globalist, world-domination-seeking European Union. Macron was the Obama-like candidate in this race and Le Pen was the almost-Trump-like candidate (again, hard to have someone be like Trump in issues when they were brought up in different cultures and countries).
The people of France have voted for more terrorism and less security in their country, without them knowing it (that's were the deception part comes into play). I pray that they stay safe as the inevitable waves of terrorism are bound to hit them and I also pray that they open their eyes and see that progressives and socialists are evil people that don’t care about their citizens’ lives.
I encourage the people of France that voted for Le Pen to read and reflect on the following Bible verse:
“Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer.”
Author: Freddie M.
The socialist group Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) recently reported that they’ve tripled membership since Donald Trump was elected president. The group recently published a strategy to combat the new President. It reads ‘On November 8, voters in the United States narrowly elected an openly racist, misogynist and nativist candidate for president’
From the strategy:
‘Our vision of democratic socialism is necessarily partial and speculative, and is in no way intended to be a blueprint for a democratic socialist society. To the contrary, the specific contours of the future to which we aspire will be democratically determined not by us, but rather by those who live it.’
In other words, the DSA thinks that the specific contours of our future ‘democratic socialist’ society will be determined by ‘those who live it’. They believe in ‘democracy’, apparently. But wait, didn’t we just have ‘those who live’ in this country democratically elect Trump on Election Day?
You can continue reading the report – it’s actually pretty funny. But my main point here is to highlight the lies the left has to appeal to in order to sound ‘democratic’. The truth is there’s nothing democratic about their ways – they don’t like this administration and they think you must be an idiot for voting Trump.
The good news for us who want to live in a REPUBLIC is the left is absolutely confused and in total disarray. From the document:
‘In their current form, however, the Left and progressive movements are not well positioned to build the multiracial organizations and coalitions necessary to confront the scourge of right-wing racism and anti-immigrant politics. Historically the Left has been, and, despite the best intentions of many, continues to be dominated by white activists (often middle class men). Organizations of the Left (including DSA) generally reflect the interests, aspirations, and cultural assumption of white working- and middle class individuals more than people of color. Several other factors have also played an important role in limiting the development of multiracial leftist organizations and multiracial coalitions that include a significant leftist presence. These include structural barriers that often constrain the participation of working-class and poor activists in political organizing (such as lack of time, energy and economic resources), the racial segregation of U.S. society that is typically reflected in the demographic makeup of activist organizations, and an individualistic national conversation about race that omits any discussion of class.’
You see, they’re so focused on making sure that they build a ‘multi-racial’ organization that they don’t seem to understand that the rejection of the leftist agenda last November includes the rejection of such characterizations. We, conservatives, don’t see color. Most of us are Christians who know we're all God's children.
The idea that some leftist will have a better understanding of how I feel about being a Hispanic woman is ridiculous. I don’t want some arrogant socialist to tell me how I’m supposed to feel. But to the extent that they think they’re smarter than those minorities they claim to protect is a sure way to self-destruction.
Now, I wonder why they leave the LGBT community out...looks like they're too intolerant to incorporate gays and lesbians in their plans, don't you think? I smell discrimination!
Minority representation is the focus of the left. Jobs and freedom is the focus of conservatism. The more time the left spends on ensuring ‘equal representation’ of minorities, the less time they’re spending on actually doing any harm. They’re fighting each other – the ‘white activists (often middle class men)’ who are currently running the left will have to FIGHT to stay relevant, while the minorities, who want a piece of the pie, will have to ATTACK those very white activists.
The more infighting, the more distracted they are – good.
What the left doesn’t seem to understand, though, is that God is in control. They desperately want to be in control – they speak about freedom, but they don’t want you to be free. They want you to think the way THEY think. If you don’t, you’re an idiot or a racist. They want you to do what THEY want you to do. If you don’t and if you’re lucky enough to live in America, they PUNISH you (think the Obamacare individual mandate). But if you live in places like Cuba or North Korea, they just KILL YOU.
That’s who the left has been since the beginning of time.
They’re not in control – God is. And God allows them to cause harm for a reason – He wants YOUR HEART. God has every right to impart JUSTICE on ALL of us and send us all to hell, but instead He offers us the GRACE of Salvation – but we must BELIEVE first.
As individuals, we have two options: we can depend on GOVERNMENT or we can depend on GOD
People who choose to depend on government will be sorely disappointed. But those of us who choose to depend on God will never be disappointed. He has a promise for us. And He’ll keep it.
Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
Priorities USA, a liberal action group, published a memo last week in which they outlined a strategy to destroy Trump – including personal attacks and appealing to your jealousy indicating that Trump is only helping the wealthy.
We know the strategy was implemented during the 2016 presidential campaign and we already know it didn’t work. The left is running out of ideas.
Once upon a time democrats would willingly join the opposition and negotiate legislation in a mostly civilized manner. It seems like Trump isn’t the typical Republican for them, which is why they hate him so much.
Democrats are no longer hiding who they truly are: a destructive force determined to put American exceptionalism behind us.
But you have to wonder: why?
Why do they obsess with the objective of destroying America’s standing in the world?
Why do they obsess with ensuring limited opportunities for you and your family?
Why do they obsess with bringing unvetted refugees who are unwilling to assimilate and ready to kill you?
Because they are trying to prove this one point:
You don’t need Jesus – you just need the government.
They don’t care that you don’t have a good paying job. Or that some Islamist terrorist might behead you in the parking lot of your grocery store. They don’t care about any of that. They just care about proving the point that you don’t need Jesus. You see...
... liberalism finds its roots in Catholicism.
There was a British monk in the 4th Century called Pelagius, who came up with the idea, which was opposed by Saint Augustine, that there is no such thing as the ‘original sin’.
You see, the Christian view of man is that we are all born sinners and as such we need Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Jesus paid for our sins on the cross and if we confess Him to be our Lord and Savior, we’ll be saved. In order for us to acknowledge our sinful nature, God must first do a work in us to bring us closer to Him.
That, in a nutshell, is the way a person is saved according to the Protestant view – and according to the Bible too. I’m not going to go into the details of this now, but there’s plenty of evidence in the Bible to support this doctrine.
But Pelagius said that man is capable of choosing good or evil without any divine intervention. And, if anything, good works could be enough to take him to heaven. In other words, this doctrine supports the idea that…
Man can live a sinless life by choice, without God.
This doctrine outlined by Pelagius is called Pelagianism. And Pelagianism is the basis for Humanism, which in turn takes us to modern day Liberalism. Humanists and Liberals think that man is good but society makes him bad. He’s not sinful – he’s a victim of society.
Christianity says that man is sinful by nature and only Jesus can save him, by Grace through Faith. No works needed. Man is sinful and therefore deserves JUSTICE. But God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. This last sentence is, of course, the most famous Bible verse: John 3:16
Liberals fight is not so much against Trump as it is against what Trump represents. Melania’s opening with the Lord’s Prayer in Trump’s rally last month and the left’s reaction to it tells you how much hatred liberals have for Jesus and whoever follows Him.
Liberals are trying to prove the point that they choose to be good without the Grace of God. Don’t ask me how they think they’re good when they support abortion, or are willing to attack Trump’s little son. But they think they’re good because they have no benchmark other than other men. Compared to Hitler, most of them are not so bad. But compared to Jesus, they’re terrible. We all are...
They reject Jesus, and the Bible as a way of life. And since our president seems like a Godly man, they hate him too. Trump has brought Jesus back into the White House and the left cannot stand the idea.
Unfortunately Pelagianism started this war on Jesus many, many centuries ago. And today it takes the form of Liberalism, Islam, Humanism, Satanism, Environmentalism, Communism, Socialism and all the isms that put everybody and everything else above God.
Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Author: Daniela R.
Fake News outlets were finally, and justly, barred from White House briefings – a move that was long overdue. If they’re going to make up stories regardless, what’s the point of having them there? We have a president who needs to speak directly to the people simply because CNN, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, etc. are in the business of LYING to you.
It was, after all, MSNBC’s host Mika Brzezinski who last week confessed ‘our job is to control exactly what people think’. That may be MSNBC’s vision for their organization, but then again they are, by definition, NOT a news organization – they’re activists. Leftist activists.
So we live in a world where the news is no longer news – it’s all indoctrination. If they want to control what you think, they’re in the business of indoctrinating you.
I could give you examples of when Obama privately met with his activist friends in the media:
We can point out the hypocrisy on the left, but quite frankly, that’s not even the point.
The point is the role of the media.
If you think your job is to indoctrinate people, you’re not a news organization.
Let’s be clear:
Six corporations control 90% of the media in America.
This gives them a huge amount of power that they’re using to indoctrinate you.
But not only that, these corporations are funded by people like George Soros, the Clintons and even Muslim countries, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who own large stakes in these companies.
The Saudi prince owns large stakes of Twitter, Fox News parent company News Corporation and Time Warner, the parent of CNN.
The media is a tool of the left to spread leftist propaganda. They’re truly a political organization designed to DECEIVE YOU.
It’s not even about money – it’s about power. It’s about their DESIRE to CONTROL YOU. It’s about their big EGOS. None of these owners need more money – it’s about their narcissistic desire to play GOD.
But you and I know there’s only ONE GOD. And to the extent that we’re well aware of these evil individuals’ intentions, we should be fine.
Remember, with God on our side, who could be against us?
Friend – the media, which is controlled by Soros, Saudi Arabia and the Clintons, is at war with YOU. It’s left the news business a long time ago and entered the indoctrination business just so they can feel good about their ever growing power.
Here's an example: remember when Oprah rammed Obama down our throats and helped him get elected? Obama played her like the manipulative master that he is.
What happened with her after he was elected?
She felt PROUD of what she thought was her accomplishment – after all, Oprah did play a big part in getting Obama elected.
But what happened TO her after Obama was inaugurated? She was hoping for a place in Obama’s White house, but what did he do?
Obama brushed her off like the piece of trash he thinks she is. Her job was done and she was not going to have a place in Obama’s WH.
It was all downhill from there for her.
Nevertheless, she showed us she had the POWER to put Obama in office. She has a big ego and she showed you she was a big deal...at least until Obama crushed her.
My point is: evil people like Soros, the Clintons, the prince of Saudi Arabia are in the business of inflating their egos. I wish I could tell you there is a more pragmatic reason for their desire to indoctrinate us – like money. But no. It’s way more basic than that. Like I said, these people have a lot of money and money is no longer a motivation. It’s POWER. It’s their EGOS. It’s…SAD.
But in the process, they’re making YOUR LIFE miserable – you’re expendable but that’s OK by them. However, you know better.
…And those He predestined He also called, those He called He also justified, those He justified He also glorified. What then shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also, along with Him, freely give us all things?…
Author: Daniela R.
You may have heard that CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently said a 12 year old girl should be OK in the locker room with a guy exposing his penis. Cuomo’s views of girls and women is the mainstream view among liberal males.
You see, liberal men don’t think much of women. They support abortion simply because they’re not interested in building real relationships with women and grow a family. They just want to ensure they have sex with these women and when they get pregnant, they can toss these women and their children into the garbage.
Liberals don’t think much of themselves either. They believe in evolution, which essentially teaches that human beings are just slightly more evolved than monkeys and their human lives are nothing special.
Liberals have hurt women in many ways – the most significant of these ways is women’s own low self-esteem.
When you tell a 12 year old girl she should feel comfortable around naked men you’re essentially telling her she’s worthless. She’s just a sex toy. She should never aspire to become anything more than a sex toy.
Inevitably the girl will grow up believing that, in order to feel accepted by the opposite sex, she needs to let men abuse her.
But you see, that’s the liberal mindset – naked women marching for abortion, like we saw not long ago, is just a pathetic display of how little these women think of themselves. They’re not in control of their bodies – men are.
Liberals’ total depravity is what Cuomo is showing here.
Total Depravity is, in fact, a theological doctrine that indicates that men are sinful in nature. Saint Augustine, the early Christian theologian, developed the doctrine of the original sin and John Calvin built upon it to introduce the Total Depravity concept.
According to this doctrine, we’re all born sinners, and it’s not until the Holy Spirit begins a work in us that we are regenerate and begin to have Faith in Jesus Christ.
Liberals reject Jesus and, therefore, are left alone with their own total depravity. They live a life that’s full of corruption because they don’t want anything to do with righteousness and true joy. They live for the short-term satisfaction of sex, gluttony, money and power – they laugh all the way to hell but they can’t laugh their way out of it.
They’re, in fact, no better than the apes they claim to descend from. If you think about it. it’s pretty sad.
Women who have any level of self-respect at all should stay as far away from liberal men as possible.
If you’re a woman looking to build a solid relationship, go no further than the man that Scriptures describe. You see, liberals don’t want women to understand the description of a real man contained in the Bible. In Ephesians chapter 5, the apostle Paul describes both a good wife and a good husband. Liberals usually criticize this verse because it commands women to ‘submit’ to their husbands – but if women understood the KIND OF HUSBAND a woman is to submit to, as a woman myself, they’d see they’d have no issues submitting to such a man.
The Bible doesn’t instruct women to submit to perverts, like liberal men. Or to abusers. Or to murderers. Or generally speaking, it doesn’t teach us to submit to UNGODLY men, but rather, to submit to one specific kind of man.
Ephesians 5:25 says:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.
So this first command to men is to LOVE their wives. Not to use them as sex toys. But to love them as Christ loved the Church. So much a man is to love his wife that he should be willing to GIVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER, like Christ did.
Do you think a man showing his genitals to a 12-year-old girl fits this description? Do you picture a man like this giving himself up for his wife?
Of course not.
Verse 28 says:
In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
The apostle Paul here indicates that nobody hates their own body – we love our bodies. In the same way, a husband should love his wife as much as he loves himself. Chris Cuomo here isn’t showing any love for women – on the contrary. He’s showing total disregard for women.
Women should seek GODLY MEN only – and liberals don’t belong in this category.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Author: Daniela R
Danielle Cross and Freddie Drake 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...