In the midst of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, the great economic news in regards to unemployment claims and rates going down, and Cory Booker tooting his own horn about supposedly being like “Spartacus” when he is not even close to that, there have been news and developments coming from Brazil.
About what? Well, last week, far-right Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who has been dubbed “Brazil’s Donald Trump”, was stabbed with a knife while he was being carried around by a crowd during one of his rallies (video below, if you can withstand the shock of seeing someone being stabbed (no blood, though)).
Bolsonaro was rushed to the hospital and underwent life-saving surgery and is currently in stable condition. The suspect (whose name I won’t share so as to not give him credit or fame over this) was arrested by police, who said he “appeared to be mentally disturbed and had claimed he was ‘on a mission from God’,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
And that’s really where we get to the meat of this article.
The suspect was “a member of the left-leaning PSOL party from 2007 to 2014. On his Facebook page, the attacker recently posted messages criticizing Bolsonaro and supporting the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.”
According to the suspect’s lawyer, “[The suspect] told me there were religious and political motivations and that he hated the prejudice that Bolsonaro openly spoke about and held against different races, religion and women.”
It’s clear that the suspect is mentally disturbed as well as very much a socialist, if he’s praising the President of a country that is out of food, water and medicine, with things likely to get even worse as time goes on.
And yet, the suspect described himself as being “on a mission from God”?
Neither his actions nor his beliefs suggest that he is someone who is Christian or believes in a benevolent Ruler of the Universe.
But this is not the first time we’ve heard a Leftist claiming to be doing God’s work or being on a mission from God. It’s not often, but we occasionally hear Leftists such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer saying that they are doing God’s work in opposing Trump.
It’s utterly asinine for a number of reasons.
First, and perhaps most importantly, what kind of narcissistic and egotistical jerks are these people to believe God needs THEM to do anything for HIM?! If God wanted Trump gone from office, He would make it so. If God did not want Trump as POTUS, He never would have allowed him to win in the first place.
Second, the Left’s actions are very openly ANTI-GOD and ANTI-CHRIST! Let’s look over some of the things the Left supports/believes in:
Beyond that, the Left constantly mocks anyone who believes in Christ, with then-candidate Barack Obama having attacked middle-American citizens as people who “get bitter… cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
So they attack and mock those who have faith in Christ and then do a 180 and claim they are siding with God in opposing Trump or Republicans? Give me a break.
These people are the very incarnation of the Exodus 20:7 verse: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”
Frankly, if God were a Trump supporter, they’d call Him a Nazi too. So for anyone to do literally the opposite of what God would want them to do, i.e. supporting abortion laws and organizations that literally profit off of death, supporting the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, supporting the destruction of the nuclear family, supporting the destruction of established scientific principles surrounding one’s gender and supporting a death cult that calls itself a religion is fundamentally stupid and wrong.
They don’t love God. Not even close. They LOATHE Him. They actively try to REPLACE Him through government.
Throughout all of history, Man has been looking to be like God, or even BE God. From Adam and Eve to Barack Obama and the entirety of the Left, to everyone in between including Nebuchadnezzar, Stalin, Pharaoh, Marx, Soros, etc. Man has always sought to be like God. In this search to be like Him, they all grew to hate Him and be envious of Him.
He has the sort of power these mere mortals would KILL to get, with some of these people actually having killed someone for power. He controls the universe and everything that happens within it. It’s the sort of power no one could even imagine, everyone would love to have, but no one can attain.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the Left HATES God. They hate Him, everything He represents and those who put their faith in Him instead of them. So whenever the Left claims they are doing God’s work or are in a mission from God, regardless of what the action is, I just have to call b.s. on that.
He would not call for anyone to support the death of the unborn. He would not call for anyone to stab a political candidate, good or bad. Those who do evil in the name of the Lord are detestable to Him.
How do I know this? IT’S IN THE BIBLE!
“They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”
And before you leave, please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike the Left who lie about their convictions and motivations, I won’t tell you a single lie, so you can trust me when I say it’s completely free. All you have to do is input your email in the allotted box on the right, click on the button right below that where it says “Subscribe to our free newsletter” and you’re done! The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy and direct access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have already written an article detailing the fact that Venezuela is the direction the Left wants to take us, not because they are prosperous, but because those within the government have all the power they want and the people depend on them for everything.
However, given that Venezuela is still a socialist country and likely will be for the foreseeable future, the fact that they are failing to deliver the promises the Left makes simply must be covered as an example of what happens when you have actual socialism running the country.
According to HotAir.com: “In the capital of Caracas, the Central Venezuelan University hospital (long recognized as one of the leading medical centers in the region) is almost entirely out of water. And so are the rest of the residents of the city, for that matter. That means that doctors can’t scrub up for surgery or even provide a sterile environment. Surgeries are being canceled and patients can’t even be kept hydrated in some cases.”
Now, it’s not that the entire country is running out of water. Venezuela enjoys 135 days of rain a year on average. However, the reason for this lack of water is that Caracas sits at an elevation of 2740 ft. so most of their potable water comes in through pipes from lower elevated lands. The problem resides in the fact that, according to HotAir.com, “With nobody left to do the maintenance on their hydraulic systems and no money to buy replacement parts and tools, the system is falling apart.”
Combine this lack of water to perform surgery on patients or even keep them hydrated with the fact that Venezuela is also running short on medicine, vaccines and food altogether and you have a recipe for disaster.
Which brings me to the main point of this entire article: what good are socialist policies if no one can afford them and they don’t even work when they are implemented?
Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Fauxcahontas, Low IQ Maxine Waters, and more all want universal healthcare. They all want guaranteed income, even if they don’t come right out and say it, and all want the power Nicolas Maduro currently wields.
What good is universal healthcare if we can’t afford to pay for it? And even if we can somehow afford to pay for it (don’t tell me “the government pays for it, not us”. That’s the argument of a legitimate moron), what good is it if the economy is so bad that the government can’t keep it running?
What good is it to implement social programs that simply don’t work? It’s certainly not for the benefit of the people. And it’s not like this problem is strictly Venezuela’s. Our own welfare systems are designed not to help lift people out of poverty but help people REMAIN in poverty. Thankfully, under Trump, millions and millions of people are abandoning certain welfare programs because they actually have jobs now, but under a socialist President, like Obama, the main objective of such programs has been to keep people poor and dependent on the programs aka the government.
I’ve said this time and time again: capitalism creates wealth, socialism destroys it. Socialism is never for the benefit of the people. It’s a farce whenever the Left attacks the rich and claims to support the poor. It was a farce when Lenin fought the bourgeoisie for the benefit of the proletariat. It’s the proletariat, the underclass, that suffers the most and the bourgeoisie, if they align themselves with those in power, remain the bourgeoisie.
Why else do you think people like Bill Gates support Democrats? It’s not like the Democrats have good plans to make the economy stronger. All of their ideas destroy the economy. He supports them because, if Democrats are in power, they will leave him alone. It’s like that one kid who is friends with the school bully and supports him. He’s just doing it so he would be left alone and wouldn’t be victimized by him.
Another great example would most likely be Donald Trump. He used to be besties with the Clintons, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other people who now demonize him and call him a Nazi. While it could very well be said that at one point he aligned himself more socially liberal, the biggest reason he was friends with these people is so that they would allow him to build in New York, which is filled with Democrats, and in other places.
Meanwhile, the regular Joe’s like you and me, and those who are already in the poor end of the spectrum suffer the most under socialism.
Socialism has never lifted anyone out of poverty. It’s only made people poorer. You don’t hear stories of people escaping the U.S. for places like Venezuela, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc. People don’t escape capitalism. They escape socialism. You’d think these Democrats would realize that people coming here from socialist countries are ESCAPING socialism, not looking to apply it here.
But of course, it’s not about the people, when it comes to Democrats. Fundamentally, the Democrats only care about themselves. They only care about their own power, wealth and well-being.
If Bernie Sanders were a true socialist, he would donate his three homes, give up his millions of dollars and live like a socialist: in a box in the streets, being taken care of by the government. He speaks like a socialist but lives like a capitalist. That is what Democrats are doing nowadays. Ocasio-Cortez is the exact same.
At the end of the day, the Left around the world does not care if their policies are a detriment to the very people that elected them. As long as they are the ones in power, and as long as the people are dependent on the government, thus giving them more power, they are more than okay. That’s why people like Maduro sit comfortably in their homes watching their countries fall apart.
As long as the elite are left unaffected by their own destructive policies, all is well.
This is the mentality of a narcissist. The mentality of the Left.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have written about this sort of thing before, but it’s significant to see a member of the MSM (New Republic contributor Adrian Carrasquillo) contributing to this conversation and calling out the Dems for taking Hispanics for granted.
In fact, that is almost literally the title of his article: “Democrats Are Taking Latino Voters for Granted.”
In the piece, Carrasquillo begins by calling out the fact that in the Florida Senatorial race between Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Bill Nelson, Rick Scott has taken the time to reach out to Hispanic voters by placing ads played during the World Cup and having a Spanish page on his website, while Nelson has done neither of these things or anything to match them. Carrasquillo writes: “Such decisions reveal a cavalier attitude toward Latino voters that isn’t just a problem for Nelson, whose race is unexpectedly tight, but for the party as a whole.”
Carrasquillo believes, interestingly enough, that the President’s actions toward illegal immigrants, a “botched” response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and increased deportations and separation of families at the border “should help Democrats win over Latino voters.”
Interestingly enough, here is where Carrasquillo makes some assumptions of his own. Carrasquillo’s point is that the Democrats are simply assuming that Hispanics will turn out to vote for them in elections and that that’s where they could be wrong due to their lack of outreach. However, Carrasquillo makes an assumption of his own: that Hispanic voters are supportive of illegal immigrants, don’t like the President’s efforts to deport the illegals, and don’t like the fact that “families” are separated at the border.
That is where Carrasquillo makes wrong assumptions of his own. Those of us who came to the United States legally, at least for the most part, do not appreciate illegals coming in here.
Here’s a short list of the things that we don’t like about illegal immigration:
Again, I’m not asking for preferential treatment just because I came here the right way. I’m asking that you don’t reward those WHO BREAK THE LAW! How difficult is that concept to grasp?!
The list could be longer, by mentioning illegals stealing jobs and such, but I’ll end it there.
So while Carrasquillo might believe Hispanics support illegal immigrants, the truth is that those of us who came here legally simply do not support illegals. It rightly ticks us off that they are allowed to do this and it rightly ticks us off that Democrats are actively breaking the law by setting up “sanctuary cities and states” in order to protect those who should not be here.
Carrasquillo also notes a poll of 1,000 Latino voters that found that “more than 70% were ‘very angry’ about the separation of families at the border and about Trump calling immigrants ‘animals’.”
Here’s the thing: the way media portrays things for people often has some impact on polls. For example, the firestorm that happened over separation of families at the border. I personally have said that families should not be separated (though I was not “very angry” about it). However, I now understand why that policy was put in place: there are plenty of illegals who will cross the border with a child that is not their own. There are plenty of illegals who are sex slave smugglers and get children across the border. Without such a policy, it puts more children at risk. Yes, actual families were separated, but it’s not like they were never going to see each other again (though that’s how the media was portraying it).
And about the “animal” comments, that also has to do with media portrayal. Anyone who actually listened to Trump, even outside the context of the situation, could understand that he was talking about MS-13 and others who were committing heinous crimes in America. I was not “very angry” at that because I perfectly understood what he meant, just as anyone who is not brainwashed by the Left could.
Carrasquillo then brings up other races such as California’s 39th district, where the Democrat candidate is trailing the Republican by 2 points, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won that county, as well as in Texas’ Senate race between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke, where Cruz is ahead, even with Hispanic voters.
Well, in regards to the Texas Senate race, what you have is a Democrat candidate who is of Irish descent and his real name is Robert Francis O’Rourke but is addressed as “Beto” to pander to Hispanics in Texas. Meanwhile, you have Senator Ted Cruz, who is the descendant of a Cuban man who sought political asylum in the U.S. and whose real name is Rafael Edward Cruz. In other words, Cruz is a real Hispanic candidate.
The interesting thing about Beto O’Rourke is that Hispanics don’t claim he is appropriating our culture by calling himself “Beto”. You would think some would have a problem with this, but since he’s a Democrat, I guess he gets a pass.
Finally, Carrasquillo talks about how the Democrats have the money and resources to spend on Hispanic outreach, but choose against it, and such an action, Carrasquillo believes, will be a detriment to the Democrats come November.
Personally, I don’t think not spending money on Hispanic outreach will be a detriment to the Democrats. Spending time calling Trump a racist based on no substantial evidence, inciting violence against Trump staffers and supporters, promising to raise people’s taxes if elected, promising to impeach the duly-elected president on the grounds that he “colluded” with Russia despite zero evidence to it, promising to open our borders so we can be flooded with illegals, drug cartels, gun cartels and unending crime, promising to refund Iran’s nuclear capabilities, promising to basically undo our progress with North Korea, promising to put people back on welfare and implementing regulations that will cost people their jobs, promising to force you to pay for government systems that will bankrupt the country, promising to abolish institutions that protect people from criminals (ICE, prisons, etc.) and promising to impose heavy gun control measures to the point where the 2nd Amendment is essentially null and void is what will be a detriment to the Democrats.
Here’s the reality of the situation: the Democrat Party does not stand for Making America Great Again. They stand for hatred. Hatred for Trump and those who support and elected him. Hatred for this country. Hatred for traditional values. Hatred for foundational values. Hatred for everything that is right.
What they propose, as much as they want to sugarcoat it, is the impending death of this country, not only as founded, but as it stands.
Not a single one of their proposed ideas could actually help anyone. This has been true for some time, but now, it’s even easier to call these things out. Abolishing ICE will weaken our border security and destroy the Border States.
Abolishing prison will naturally and logically raise crime. It’s basically the next best thing to legalizing crime that the Left can come up with. You can’t go to jail if jail has been abolished, so what is stopping criminals from destroying people’s lives? They would have even more incentive to be evil, knowing they will not have to pay for it.
Medicare-for-all is an enterprise that could bankrupt the country on its own. Combine that with the fact that they want to abolish profits and establish a system of guaranteed income, and you have a society drenched in utter chaos and calamity.
The Democrats don’t have anything going for themselves. They can’t promote themselves, so they have to attack their opposition. They have no good ideas, so they attack the ideas of others. The only reason they are even considered a threat to the GOP is that the media is on their side. If the media really were unbiased, the Democrat Party would cease to exist.
Had they been unbiased up to now, Obama would not have won a reelection (he still likely would have won the first time, at least). The reason for this is not that Obama faced tough competition in 2012. The reason is that he would have been impeached long before the 2012 election.
The ironic thing is that, if they had been unbiased, it’s possible that Trump would not have felt the need to run for office and another Republican candidate would be POTUS right now.
Remember, part of the reason Trump ran is because of the fake news media being heavily biased and that Obama was destroying the country. With no Obama in office long enough to damage the country, Trump would not be in office right now.
But without the media, the Democrat Party has nothing. Sure, they can brainwash useful pawns to support socialism, but it’s not going to take them very far. Most of the country isn’t socialist. And even if we were, we would quickly drop the system of government to return to capitalism.
Which brings me to another topic to discuss at another time: the soul of an American is filled with freedom. We fought to gain our independence from oppression. We can do so once again should the need arise.
It’s in our DNA to yearn for freedom. We know that we’d rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
But that’s a topic for another time. To wrap things up, it’s interesting to see a member of the MSM calling out the Dems over their lack of outreach for Hispanics. But even if they heed this guy’s advice, there’s no way in Hell I would ever vote for a Democrat.
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
For the most part, I’ve chosen to steer clear off the topic of tariffs and a trade war. However, as I would read story after story relating to a trade war with China, one thing kept coming up in my mind: China would be obliterated by a trade war.
Even if the stories I would read would suggest the exact opposite, that the U.S. should not engage in a trade war with the Chi-coms, my instinct would always tell me that China had really no hopes of winning a trade war with us, especially if our economy is booming, which it is.
I will return to why exactly I suspected China would lose a trade war momentarily. For now, I wish to share a story with you published on Breitbart News titled: “Tectonic Shift in China: Xi Under Fire as China Realizes it Underestimated U.S. Trade Resolve.”
“Chinese President Xi Jinping is facing backlash from within the Communist Party over his hardline stance in the trade dispute with the United States, Reuters reported Thursday,” according to Breitbart.
Reuters reported that: “A growing trade war with the United States is causing rifts within China’s Communist Party, with some critics saying that an overly nationalistic Chinese stance may have hardened the U.S. position, according to four sources close to the government.”
“President Xi Jinping still has a firm grip on power, but an unusual surge of criticism about economic policy and how the government has handled the trade war has revealed rare cracks in the ruling Communist Party…”
“There is a growing feeling within the Chinese government that the outlook for China has ‘become grim’, according to a government policy advisor, following the deterioration in relations between China and the United States over trade. The advisor requested anonymity.”
I’m not surprised at all that the advisor requested anonymity. If the Chinese government found out who was saying these things about China and the government, they would imprison that person and possibly even execute them. There is no freedom of speech there. The only things you can say are things favorable to the government.
Regardless, let’s continue with the Reuters report: “Those feelings are also shared by other influential voices. ‘Many economists and intellectuals are upset about China’s trade war policies,’ an academic at a Chinese policy think tank told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. ‘The overarching view is that China’s current stance has been too hard-line and the leadership has clearly misjudged the situation.”
The significance of this report cannot be understated. If this is, indeed, the case, then this is massive news! The Chinese communists don’t tend to be split about things like this. They are usually fairly unified. So for these anonymous sources to be saying these things about the Chinese Communist Party, that’s a big deal.
Even an article from the South China Morning Post suggests that China should concede defeat to Trump in this trade war. To quote Xu Yimiao, the writer of the article: “Beijing’s strategy of a tit-for-tat retaliation over tariffs has clearly failed. In fact, this strategy escalated the conflict…”
But how can this be? I thought China was supposed to kick our butts in a trade war. That’s what the Left and the fake news media were saying, after all.
Well, it’s really no surprise that the Left would say that we would lose a trade war with China. The Left sees China as a utopia. As such, they believe China’s centralized economy is superior to a capitalist market economy. Even U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) claimed last month that China held an advantage over the U.S. in a trade war, and engaging further in this trade war would be “stupid”.
According to Breitbart, “Views such as Schatz’s were common during the Cold War, when many prominent economists and political scientists argued that the Soviet Union’s totalitarian society could prevail over the U.S. Earlier in the last century, some had made similar arguments based on the perceived strength of Nazi Germany compared to the U.S.”
Which brings me to the reason I suspected China would lose a trade war. What do China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have in common? They would use socialistic policies to run every aspect of the government and people’s lives, including the economy. And what happened to two of those nations? They are no longer around… well, not as they used to be.
The reason I suspected China would lose a trade war is because capitalism always defeats communism in economics. Communism would be considered an economic joke if it weren’t so dangerous.
You see, there’s a very clear difference between capitalism and communism/socialism. I’ve even said this before in the past: capitalism creates wealth; communism destroys it.
Capitalism is the enterprise of building more and more wealth through freedom. Communism is the enterprise of spreading wealth around so much that it’s too thinly spread, and the enterprise of making it incredibly difficult to accumulate any sort of wealth. It’s the enterprise of spending other people’s money until there is no more money to be spent.
Under capitalism, wealth belongs to the people. Under communism, the people belong to the government.
I have often talked about China and how they are ranked #2 in world GDP (#3 if you count the E.U.). But you really have to think about why they are in that place.
Well, it’s most likely a combination of having the world’s biggest population (1.379 billion since 2016), so there’s a lot of people to give money to the government, as well as exploitation of what makes the GDP grow. For example, government spending grows the GDP. Part of the reason Obama’s GDP managed to grow around 2% is because he would spend a lot of money and drive our debt sky-high. But while the GDP was “growing”, the economy was stagnating, with high unemployment levels, more people going into welfare, etc.
China is doing much the same thing. They build luxurious ghost cities that no one can afford to move into and use so that the GDP artificially grows to an extent.
Now, I won’t claim to know the intricacies of Chines economics. I doubt vast amounts of spending and having the world’s largest population are the sole reasons for that GDP ranking, but they are significant parts of it. (The other part might be that they use relatively capitalistic economic policies to avoid completely crashing the economy and sinking the country).
What I’m getting at is that no communist country can withstand any sort of economic war with a capitalistic country, by definition. Engaging in trade wars with the U.S. will only accelerate China’s ultimate demise at the hands of their own communistic system.
And this becomes even more true if the U.S. is going through an economic boom, which it is. This, I believe, is part of the reason Trump is imposing and enforcing tariffs on foreign countries. Another part of it is the fact that other countries have been taking advantage of the U.S. because the Establishment believes the U.S. became powerful and wealthy because it somehow stole from other nations and felt that foreign governments taking advantage of us was a form of justice. Trump was having none of that nonsense and decided to embark on making fair trade deals by using the same tactics as the other nations.
But this really would not be suggested for Trump to do if the economy weren’t booming. With a booming economy, we can afford to engage in trade wars to make better trade deals in the future.
A booming U.S. economy combined with the simple fact of life that communism sucks at trade wars, and you can see why I always believed China would be destroyed in a trade war.
And seemingly, people within the Chinese Communist Party are beginning to realize this.
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The tricky thing about deception is that, despite how carefully you construct your rhetoric, there will be times when there are cracks and someone makes a slip of the tongue. California councilman Jesse Dominguez experienced this recently.
In a Santa Barbara council meeting two weeks ago, after the city passed the measure to ban all straws, including fully semiautomatic assault straws, Councilman Jesse Dominguez responded to the question of “what’s next?” in the most Communistic way possible: “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”
And the Joseph Stalin Award goes to… Jesse Dominguez for his part in expressing what every Leftist in America thinks but won’t dare say out loud just yet.
It’s hard to get more communist than that… well, except in passing laws that lead to hundreds of millions of deaths. Since 60 million babies have already been killed because of Roe v. Wade alone, the Left in America is on good pace to keep up with the communists in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Vietnam.
Now, for as far to the Left as California is, to the point where they’ll ban straws but legalize knowingly spreading STDs, they are still smart enough to realize that such comments are horrible, oppressive and wrong. Dominguez apologized for his remark, saying: “A few weeks ago, I made a string of words in a rhetorical fashion about regulation and they were not taken as rhetorical and that’s my fault so I want to apologize.”
He’s not sorry for what he said. No, like a typical Leftist, he blames you people for not understanding the “rhetorical” fashion in which he said the words. Despite the fact that, even if those words are rhetorical, they still mean the same exact thing. Something rhetorical is something relating to expressing a rhetoric in order to persuade or impress. A simple Google search will tell you this.
So his words mean the exact same thing, even if they are “rhetorical”. His aim is to control every aspect of people’s lives, supposedly because they lack common sense. It’s the rhetoric of every tyrant in the history of Earth.
For all the times the MSM wants to compare Trump to Stalin, which is ridiculous in itself, the real comparison exists between this councilman in particular and Stalin. In fact, knowing that Stalin was a COMMUNIST and communism resides on the Left, that comparison between Trump and Stalin is exceedingly ludicrous.
But that’s a conversation for another time. Right now, I want to focus on Joseph Stalinguez over here, and the entire Left as a whole.
This is precisely who the Left is. They want to control every aspect of your life, and this is not anything new.
I can’t help but remember a particular policy that Hillary Clinton’s idol, Margaret Sanger, the African-American community’s biggest threat, wished would be employed. In a March 27, 1934 article titled: “America Needs a Code for Babies”, Sanger said that the government should establish a sort of code “for the better distribution of babies… to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” Under this code, “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for fatherhood… No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.”
Talk about controlling every aspect of people’s lives. Sanger was calling for the very thing these pro-“choice” people are against: the government in women’s reproductive systems. Under such a code, a woman would not have the legal right to bear a child, despite the fact that that’s a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT! Under such a code, a man is not allowed to be the father of a child without the proper government documentation. A couple who wants a child would need permission from the government to have a child.
Even Stalin was not this oppressive, and this all comes from the founder of Planned Parenthood herself. But this perfectly encapsulates what the Left wants to do. Remember, Sanger WAS part of the American Left at the time. She gave speeches (or at least one speech) to the women’s chapter of a New Jersey Ku Klux Klan chapter, worked with two Nazi sympathizers in Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard in her magazine and other works, and her magazine has a piece written by Ernst Rudin titled “Eugenic Sterilization, an Urgent Need”. Rudin was the chief architect of the Nazi sterilization program and was a mentor to Joseph Mengele, a Nazi physician and research scientist.
Sanger also urged that America follow Nazi Germany’s example in the field of eugenics, saying that “in animal industry, the poor stock is not allowed to breed. In gardens, the weeds are kept down,” in a March 3rd, 1938 speech titled: “Human Conservation and Birth Control.”
Knowing all of this, tell me, does it sound like the Left of today is any different from the Left of the early-to-mid 20th century? Does it even sound all too different from the very Nazis that they want to compare Trump to?
I have said before that socialism is the same today as it was in the past. It does not change. By the same token, neither do communism, fascism and Nazism. They are all derivative of Marxism and all find a comfy home in the Left.
Returning to Dominguez, does what he said, regardless of how he meant it, sound all too different from what Sanger wanted? A central power dictating what citizens can and can’t do?
There is no other way to describe it apart from sheer tyranny, and these people think America wants what they’re selling? Maybe those who are too ignorant to understand the similarities between the Democrat Party platform and the Nazi platform and those who are successfully deceived into believing socialism is somehow a force for good, but not the majority of America.
Those who know the truth know perfectly well that the Left in America is the same as in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Venezuela.
It’s the worst idea mankind has ever come up with.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Here’s a topic we don’t often discuss. Most of the time, we talk about what a great job Trump is doing as POTUS (50% approval rating by Rasmussen is not bad at all!), or the dangers and stupidity of socialism (still waiting on a math genius on the Left to tell me how they’re going to afford everything they want, or even one of the things they want). But the issue of feminism still lingers. And yes, it’s an issue.
What brings me to writing about this topic? The slew of all-female casts for movie reboots. From Ghostbusters to Ocean’s 11, and now, Terminator.
Last week, we were informed that a new Terminator movie is being made and set to premier in November of this year. We were informed through the franchise’s Twitter account with a promo shot of three women: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Natalia Reyes and Mackenzie Davies. This promo shot has feminists going wild for the movie not because of the stellar cast or crew (though James Cameron producing, Tim Miller directing and Linda Hamilton starring doesn’t hurt), but because the shot, and presumably most, if not all, of the movie features no men.
According to Graeme McMilan from The Hollywood Reporter: “There’s another, less obvious, reason to get excited about the movie because of this image. There are no men in the photo.”
“There were obviously men in the movies – Sarah’s son, John, is the Macguffin that gets the story going, after all, and there are both sidekicks (Hi, Kyle Reece! Hi, Old-School Terminator in T2!) and male threats – but at the center of it all, unmistakably, is Sarah Connor. She was the engine of resistance and change for the entire narrative and, for both of Cameron’s movies, the only character that really provided any emotional hook for the audience.”
“The lesson seems obvious – but it’s one that only appears to have been learned with the release of this new promotional image. When it comes to Terminator, arguably more than any other science-fiction franchise, the future is female, and always has been. The visual that audiences needed to see to have faith in any new installment isn’t the eponymous robot threat, any number of grimacing male action heroes brandishing weapons while sweating, or a callback to earlier promo posters; none of that is what makes the series special. What is, is meeting the women who are going to fight back and save tomorrow.”
Now, I have only watched the first two Terminator movies, so I can’t speak for the other ones. What I saw out of the Terminator movies isn’t merely a strong female protagonist who don’t need no man. What I saw is a strong female protagonist who (in T1) needed the help of a male soldier to protect the child she has yet to have and (in T2) being driven to near insanity by the trauma of being hunted down by a machine from the future and doing whatever it takes to protect her son, even befriending the very machine that haunted her nightmares because he’s been reprogrammed to protect her son as well.
What these two movies have in common is the fight for the protection of the most important thing in people’s lives: their children.
THAT is what made those two movies so good and special. Not the fact that Sarah Connor was strong (she wasn’t for most of T1) or that she only needed herself to do the task at hand (she needed the help of the T-1000 in T2 for the most part). It’s the fact that she would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the most important person in her life, even before that person was yet to be born.
If you want to see a film that encapsulates what it means for men and women to be equals, look no further than Terminator 2. Connor is strong because she has to be. She is stronger than a lot of the men in the film, too. But she doesn’t disrespect or belittle the men around her who are strong as well. She respects them.
Paul Bois of the Daily Wire wrote about this as well. He writes: “Though tough and certainly no-nonsense in their own right, neither Sarah Connor nor Ellen Ripley (from the Alien franchise, another one of Cameron’s movies) show disrespect to the men around them, or rather, the actual men around them. Effeminate, weak-willed men like Dr. Silverman and Lt. Gorman, they steamroll over. Righteous, heroic men like Kyle Reese and Corporal Hicks, they respect; actually, they depend on them for survival and vice-versa…”
What makes women strong is not the objective of being strong in itself. What makes women strong is their superhuman desire to protect their children. Feminists believe women must be strong in order to survive in an occupation or, for the lunatics in the feminist movement, to overthrow “the patriarchy”, and I will return to that concept momentarily.
They believe that women should really only care about their careers and not their family or children. That directly contradicts the role the Lord has established for women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t work or shouldn’t be strong at work. I’m saying there should be a clear reason for being strong: the benefit of their children.
That is the point Terminator 2, and even Terminator 1, were conveying. You do everything you possibly can to protect your children. They are not just the number one priority, they are the only priority. That’s the point that these feminists are missing.
Now, let’s return to that “overthrow the patriarchy” point, because it’s important. It details the precise point of the feminist movement. The main reason for existing. Whenever they say they only want “equality” and for women to be considered equal to men, that’s utter garbage. Why? BECAUSE WOMEN ALREADY ARE EQUAL TO MEN!
Men don’t have a single right that women do not, at least in America. Women can vote, just as men. Women can drive, just as men. Women can purchase and brandish a firearm, just as men. Women can work, just as men. There isn’t a single right that men have that women don’t (and don’t even get me started on the absolutely ridiculous notion that guns have more rights than women). The fact that men and women ARE equal is the precise problem to these feminists.
You see, they don’t want equality. If they did, they would realize we already have it. No, like the KKK who want white supremacy, the feminist movement wants female supremacy. They want women in charge and take over where they believe men have “failed”. They want women to be above men, not equals to them.
And every time a movie like this comes out and the feminist lunatics like McMilan speak in favor of the movie for that particular feature, that truth is exposed. You can’t possibly expect me to be stupid enough that I would believe you if you said “we want equality” while at the same time saying things like “down with the patriarchy!” or “the future is female”. That line of thought is illogical. Which is why it fits perfectly with the Leftist agenda.
And it’s also why I always find it ironic whenever they attack conservative women. To feminists, a woman who makes the decision of being a stay-at-home mom is dumb at best and a betrayal of their gender at worst. Despite the fact that feminists supposedly fight for the freedom to choose, they hate it whenever women make the “wrong” decision.
Oh, and by the way, that freedom to choose only really extends to abortion. If you choose to remain at home with the kids and teach them, you are berated for that choice. If you choose to be a Christian, you are berated for that choice.
Leftists are not pro-choice, they are pro-the-only-choice-to-be-made-is-what-they-want-for-you aka socialism. They don’t want you to have a choice. They want to make the choices for you. And that entire thing brings me to a different argument of how “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron as there is nothing democratic about a system of government that takes people’s things by force and gives them to other people.
Regardless, let me reiterate my point: feminism is not about equality - it’s about female supremacy and rule. Statements like “the future is female” only highlight the truth of that fact. This new Terminator movie may be good or may be bad, but the fact that it may likely have an all-female cast is not what will make it good or bad.
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
What do you figure is the Left’s worst nightmare? Aside from Trump, that is? I imagine their worst nightmare, or at least one of their worst nightmares, would be a specific demographic of voters leaving their mental slave plantations in droves.
Among these demographics are Hispanics, whom the Left believes belong to them in vote and in mind. The Left, in a rather racist way, somehow believes that all Hispanics hate Trump and that all Hispanics want open borders. That we want more of our “hermanos” and “hermanas” (brothers and sisters, if you didn’t know) flooding this country, building more and larger Hispanic-only communities and changing this country fundamentally from an English-speaking, liberty-loving nation to a Spanish-speaking, welfare-delivering nation. Basically, the Left believes that we want to turn America into Mexico or any other Latin-American country.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I will get back to this topic momentarily. Right now, I want to share with you the approval ratings for Trump. According to a recent Harvard/Harris poll, President Trump’s approval rating overall sits at a strong 47%, with the main driver for these great numbers being a fantastic 10% rise in Trump approval among Hispanics.
These numbers almost certainly come from the fact that Hispanic unemployment rates are at historic lows and the fact that according to another poll by Economist/YouGov, only 20% of Hispanics support the Obama-era policy of “catch and release”, where instead of detaining people and families crossing the border, they are instructed to report to a hearing at some point in the future, which most people never attend. According to that poll, 64% of Hispanics support the policies we are using now and even the ones we had before under Trump. That is to say that 64% of Hispanics support either detaining the families together or separating the parents from the children.
Surely, these are devastating numbers for the Left. The only reason they pressed Trump so hard about the separation of children at the border is to virtue signal and pretend they are friends of Hispanics. They are not.
They are only friends to illegal immigrants. To those who will vote for them in elections if they can get away with it or if they can make it legal, which is an unconstitutional proposal.
They are only friends to those who are willing to vote for them or rather, who are suckered into voting for them. They pretend to be friends of Hispanics, friends of African Americans, friends of gay people, but the minute any one of them deviates from the slave plantations of Leftist thought, they become the enemy of the Left.
Whenever they see a conservative black man or woman, they have no problem calling them the N-word. Whenever they see a conservative Hispanic, they have no problem making racist remarks. Whenever they see a conservative gay person, they have no problem throwing the F-word at them.
The reason for this is that they have the mentality that these demographics all belong to the Left. They believe black people must vote Democrat, despite the fact that Democrats have gone to war to keep them slaves. They believe Hispanics must vote Democrat for the simple fact that Democrats want open borders and want to bring in more Hispanics. They believe gay people must vote Democrat because they were the ones who fought against the Christian belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
The Left fundamentally believes that all non-white people belong to them. It’s the same old pre-emancipation mentality that they hold. And whenever one of us escapes their plantation, they attack us and call us traitors to the “cause” or traitors to our demographic. They do this to conservative women too.
But when you get down to it, just what is that “cause”? Why are we “traitors” to our demographic? Is that “cause” the cause of turning America less white? First of all, good luck with that. According to a 2017 census, 76.6% of the population in America is White, with African Americans constituting 13.4%, Native Americans 1.3%, Asians 5.8% and Hispanics 18.1%. Second of all, what purpose does it serve to make America less white?
To the Left, making America less white means making America more Leftist and liberal. Again, the Left believes they own the non-white vote. If they can make most of America non-white, that will somehow translate into making America more Leftist.
Everything they do is about race, isn’t it? They’ve demonized white people to the point the New York Times has hired an anti-white racist to their editorial board who wishes to see white people go extinct. The Left simply can’t let go of their racist heritage. It’s in their DNA to hate other people for the slightest deviation in what they consider acceptable.
Now, I promised I would return to the topic of the Left believing Hispanics want to turn America into Mexico or another Latin-American country. As I said, nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because then what would be the point of leaving those countries for America? What would be the point of spending a lot of hard-earned money to legally move to the United States (which, considering currency differences, is quite difficult) if the objective is turning the U.S. into the “s**thole” we just came from?
My parents and I, for a long time, wanted to come to the United States. Not for the ridiculous purpose of turning it into Argentina (where we’re from) but for the purpose of experiencing life in the land of opportunity. For the purpose of eventually living the American Dream. For the purpose of living in a free land where the Constitution is a set of rules for the government, not the people. Where the government has a basic set of rules of what it can do with and to people. Where it can’t shut down anyone’s free speech, take away anyone’s right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.
We wanted to live in a country where the government won’t destroy the economy to the point that it defaults and has to confiscate the money of its citizens (which is literally what happened a little before we left Argentina). We wanted to live in a country that is prosperous. In a country where its economic system is built to lead to prosperity.
Why would we (Hispanics) want to turn America into the countries we left? So it’s really not that surprising to see Hispanics from, say, Cuba, be so adamantly against socialism and communism. They know what those things are, know how bad they are and know that they escaped from it and do not want to experience it again, despite how much these numb-skulls say it is different from how it used to be.
This is why I am not surprised that legal Hispanic Americans are not too fond of illegal immigrants. We do things the right way. We do things legally. They don’t and yet, they still get priority? Not that we want to be prioritized or compensated or anything. But it makes no logical sense to reward the breaking of the law.
I am also not surprised that more and more Hispanics are coming to approve of Trump’s job. He has done far more for the Hispanic and black communities than any Democrat ever has. Although, considering the Democrats fought to keep black people as slaves, they didn’t set the bar too high.
“And we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli
Right off the bat from the title alone, I can already make a couple of comments. First of all, while I do not know the intricacies of Canadian politics, the fact that any Canadian province would be conservative enough, or heck, LOGICAL enough to realize the socialist idea of a “universal basic income” is a bad idea honestly surprises me. My first and only impression of Canada is that they are socialists to the core. I fully expect them to totally embrace every socialist policy there is because of their white Obama PM named Justin Trudeau.
Second of all, OF COURSE IT’S UNSUSTAINABLE!
But we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Let’s begin with The Guardian’s report titled: “Ontario’s new Conservative government to end basic income experiment.”
The article reads as follows: “The previous Liberal government launched the pilot program last year, touting it as a unique three-year foray into a policy touted as a panacea to poverty, bloated bureaucracy and the rise of precarious work.”
“The C$150m pilot recruited 4,000 participants across three regions of the Canadian province, ranging from people working in low-paying or precarious jobs to those on social assistance. Social scientists watched closely as the unconditional payments began to flow last year, tracking whether the funds would improve health, education and housing outcomes.”
“On Tuesday, Lisa MacLeod, the Ontario minister responsible for social services, announced the end of the pilot, which she described as ‘quite expensive’, adding that it was ‘clearly not the answer for Ontario families’… ‘It was certainly not going to be sustainable,’ she said. ‘Spending more money on a broken program wasn’t going to help anyone.’”
Now, The Guardian does mention that MacLeod does not provide any data to support her claim, but one really needs data to understand that such a program would be unsustainable. What that program does, at least if implemented to the level socialists want in which everyone gets paid roughly $10,000 a year, is logically flawed. Never mind how the government would be able to pay for it if they can’t even manage to afford Medicare-for-All (I’m talking about here in the U.S., not necessarily Canada) where it would take roughly $32.6 TRILLION and according to Ocasio-Cortez, taxing the ultra-rich and corporations would only get us around $2 trillion.
So never mind the fact that it’s unaffordable, what about the fact that it destroys any and all incentive to work for anything? If I can get $10,000 for sitting on my behind watching t.v. all day, I will. Why would I go out to work for any company, having to waste gas driving there, meeting with people I may or may not like, having a boss I may or may not like and working on something that is not my passion?
If I’m thinking this, you can bet your basic income that other people would think the same. I get that not every single job out there would go away. There are certain occupations that are people’s passion. For example: painting. I know that if I had any artistic talent whatsoever, I would take that basic income and try to cash in a bit more by selling my art. But then I run into another problem: who is going to sell me paint? Who is going to make the paint that I use? I can’t imagine anyone who works at a retail store that sells paint is passionate about what they do. If they can also sit at home all day and survive off of basic income, why would they go to work? The same goes for anyone who makes paint.
Another occupation that takes passion is acting. Acting in a movie, t.v. show, theater, etc. But again, a problem arises: who is going to work to set up a stage? I can’t imagine too many people are passionate about managing lighting or holding up the boom stick.
Or take architecture. I can imagine people who become architects or building designers are passionate about their work. But what will all that work amount to if there is no one to actually build the buildings they design? Who is passionate about setting up ply-wood? About working a crane? Mixing cement?
You see? Even passion-based occupations suffer tremendously if no one is willing to work to set up the tiny details.
Now, I fully understand that people want more and more money. I’m not saying that all of these jobs will certainly go away. But many of them will and there will be a severe lack of employment. Not to mention the people that are willing to work despite the basic income will most likely be inefficient. Who is going to work hard for something if the worst thing that happens is you get fired and you have to sit comfortably with $10,000 a year? Work efficiency goes down when people don’t really care if they retain that job or not.
Which brings me to another point: what about the individual product? Who is going to work hard to make your iPhones? No one in this country, that’s for sure. As such, you have massive outsourcing to China, India and just about anyone who is willing to do this work because they won’t have anything if they don’t work.
And all of these examples count on basic income being a permanent thing. Like I mentioned earlier, how are they going to afford it? Particularly in the U.S.? Even if you tax the ultra-rich 100% and confiscate all of their assets, you still would not be able to fund Medicare-for-All, let alone universal basic income for a significant period of time.
Of course, taxing the ultra-rich 100% means they are officially dirt-poor and someone else takes their place at the 1%. But since those people have considerably less money than the previous ultra-rich, the government can take even less money from them at 100%. So that creates a cycle of poverty that quickly leaves everyone in the country in a worse condition than North Koreans.
And this is all to barely even afford universal basic income for a year. As a result, with people being dirt-poor, the government has less and less to give and more and more people to support - and the whole idea becomes irrelevant. You get to the point where anyone having $10,000 becomes the 1% and they get taxed to high-heaven.
There is likely no better way to destroy a nation’s economy than universal basic income. Even if you don’t apply the ludicrous idea of taxing the ultra-rich 100% of their income and confiscating their belongings, it is still unsustainable because it costs far too much for everyone.
Universal basic income wouldn’t just be taxing the ultra-rich horrendous rates, it’d also be taxing EVERYONE ELSE a ludicrous amount. According to the Pew Research Center, back in 2015, people who made $200,000 or more paid for 58.8% of all the country’s taxes. Those who made less than $30,000 a year paid only 1.4% of all taxes. Meaning that even if you tax everyone a very high amount of money, you don’t come out with much more.
This follows basic math. If you take 10% of $1,000,000, you get $100,000. If you take 10% of $10,000, you get $1,000. And this is assuming you have a flat tax rate, which the country does not. My point is that the rich naturally pay more than middle and low-income level people because of basic math. So if you tax middle and low-income level people exorbitant rates, you hardly get much more to begin with. And since the rich can’t afford to pay huge taxes to cover basic income, taxing everyone else will hardly get you much more money.
No matter what way you slice it, it’s impossible to afford universal basic income to the level socialists want. And as I mentioned before, even if we could afford it, it would set us down the path of less and less employment, less and less wealth and the government, country and everyone within it ends up paying dearly. Yes, that even includes the very people who want to implement it. Even the Left would end up paying heftily for it.
Not only is universal basic income a rational impossibility, but it’s also economic suicide. The only real way to lift people out of poverty is through capitalism. Capitalism creates wealth. Anyone who sets their mind, time and work to become wealthy can become wealthy.
If only these nincompoops could realize this.
1 Timothy 5:8
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
This past weekend, President Trump held a meeting with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger to discuss today’s media. The NYT released a statement on Sunday in which Sulzberger said he confronted Trump over his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric” and that Trump calling the Fake News media the “enemy of the people” could lead journalists to be physically harmed.
He began his statement by saying: “My main purpose for accepting this meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric… his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.”
“I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’. I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”
First things first: Trump does not have an “anti-press rhetoric”. If he did, he would be attacking ALL press, not just the MSM. What he has is an anti-fake news rhetoric. Which leads me to my second point: “untrue and harmful”? Tell me what the biggest attempt at destroying Trump has been. Russian collusion, right? Is it true? Did it happen? These people certainly are living life as though it is, despite the fact that there is no evidence and Mueller has absolutely nothing on Trump regarding this.
That’s without mentioning the fact that the MSM constantly avoids mentioning good economic news brought about by the GOP tax cuts. Or the fact that they constantly call conservatives or Trump supporters racist even if their tweets or comments are not about race at all (i.e. Roseanne’s Valerie Jarret tweet). Or the fact that they continue to make up lie after lie about Trump being a Russian spy of some sort who likely owes Putin a lot of money. They ARE fake news. Everything about them screams fake news.
But above all else. Above the ridiculous attacks and lies about Trump. Above every rhetoric they have about him. Above every unfair and mean thing they have to say about him. Above all of that is the fact that they straight up lie about his supporters.
From calling us “brainwashed” and “cultists” to flat out calling us racists, sexists, bigots and homophobes to calling us Fascists and Nazis – it’s these things that create a real threat to people.
Breitbart News has taken the time to write down and update a rap sheet of violent acts ranging from harassment to physical violence against a Trump supporter or staffer that has been media-approved or at least ignored by the media. This rap sheet, at least since the last time I checked, denotes 538 acts of harassment and/or physical violence against a Trump supporter or conservative.
The rap sheet goes as far back as September 1, 2015, long before Trump even became the GOP nominee and was considered a joke of a candidate by the media. This September 1st case details that a “Texas teen says Donald Trump is the reason he was attacked at bus stop”. Despite the fact that the teen was not old enough to vote, the fact that he was wearing camo and boots seemingly was enough for one 24-year-old Ezequiel Beiza and a friend of his to attack the boy, believing he would vote for Trump.
And it’s only gotten worse for conservatives since then. Not too long ago, Low IQ Maxine Waters encouraged people to harass Trump staffers if they see them. And about a week or so ago, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said that Brett Kavanaugh supporters are “complicit in evil” and that liberals should get in certain Congressmen’s face. By certain Congressmen, he means conservatives and Republicans, of course.
That, combined with the constant name-calling from MSM networks directed at Trump supporters, calling us Nazis despite the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were all socialists, it’s no surprise that people are harassing, threatening and attacking us.
By calling us “Nazis”, people are then led to believe they are morally justified in harassing, threatening and attacking us.
THIS is what is causing people harm. Not Trump calling the fake news media the enemy of the people. Because in all reality, the fake news media really IS the enemy of the people. That much is evident given what I have shared with you.
There are far more Trump supporters, I believe, than anti-Trump people. There are more pro-American people than anti-American people in this country. When the fake news calls the majority of the country “Nazis”, then they really are the enemy of the people. They, inadvertently or not, paint a target on people’s backs.
You are far more likely of being attacked wearing pro-Trump gear in cities like Chicago, L.A., San Francisco and New York than you are of being attacked for being gay in the south. When the Left preaches about tolerance, that only includes people who agree with them. That is literally the opposite of tolerance.
They preach about being tolerant of people who are different except if someone is a Christian, a Trump supporter and/or a conservative. It is they who are intolerant. Anyone who has a different thought or idea or disagrees to some level with the groupthink of liberalism is barraged and labeled.
Recently, the dean of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia was barraged and forced to apologize by Leftists. For what? Offering congratulations to a GOP gubernatorial candidate (Brian Kemp) with whom he had gone to high school and said Kemp was “a nice guy”.
Literally having a GOP friend and saying he is a “nice guy” will get you into trouble with the intolerant Left. There is no room for civility in the Left. There can only be bullying and bloodshed.
Not that this is surprising. The Left has always been intolerant of other people. In the past, Democrats would be intolerant of black people, forcing them into slavery and fighting for their supposed “right” to keep them slaves. Today, the same Democrats are intolerant of black people, forcing them into ghettos with little to no chance of getting out and forcing them to rely on the government (aka them) for everything, as well as fighting for their supposed “right” to kill them in the womb. Not to mention they attack black conservatives and bring out the old Southern Democrats in them by calling them the N-word and a slew of other nasty things.
And this is just in America. Looking at Hitler, who Democrat Party sweetheart JFK once called a “legend”, sought to eradicate not only the Jews, whom he blamed for Germany’s defeat in WWI, but everyone who does not possess the traits of his desired Ubermench, enslaving and killing 6 million Jews and possibly 20 million total people throughout the Holocaust alone.
The Left’s DNA is comprised of intolerance, hatred, bigotry, and bloodshed. It is also comprised of deceit, which hides all of these basic undeniable truths about them.
And the media, being the Left’s biggest mind-control device (at least for the notoriously few people that still watch them over the Food Network), follows in this intolerance, hatred and bigotry. They hate anyone who is not like them; who does not think like them. Is there a better example for the very definition of a Nazi?
Oh, and before you accuse me of doing the same by calling the fake news people Nazis themselves, know that Nazism and socialism are one and the same. Me calling these people Nazis is not meant to justify any attack, physical or otherwise, of a fake news journalist. Matter of fact, I highly discourage people from doing that. Not that it’s necessary. Our side is not intolerant like them. We don’t need to “win” arguments using violence. They do.
This is why you don’t see a single case of a fake news reporter being harassed or threatened or attacked. We are not the intolerant Nazis that they are.
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The Democrat Party’s little rising star is back at it again showing her ignorance on national television, this time as a guest of Trevor Noah’s show “Daily Show”. On the show, Noah asked the fair question of how we are going to pay for her agenda, particularly healthcare for all. Ocasio-Cortez then showed her unending ignorance in a few ways: not understanding basic math, not doing basic research and confusing a department’s entire budget with a budget increase.
The conversation focuses on healthcare for all, so we’ll be focusing on that as well. But I would like to point out that that’s the only agenda item we’re talking about here and not the other ones. The reason for me pointing this out will become clear soon enough.
First, Ocasio-Cortez brings up the Obama argument of people “paying their fair share” aka suffocating them with high taxes that will ruin us.
“… one of the things we saw is, if people pay their fair share, if corporations and the ultra wealthy – for example, as Warren Buffett likes to say, if he pays as much as his secretary paid, 15 percent tax rate, if corporations paid – if we reverse the [GOP] tax bill, raised our corporate tax rate to 28 percent… if we do those two things and also close some of those loopholes, that’s $2 trillion right there. That’s 2 trillion dollars in ten years.”
That sounds neat, doesn’t it? Taxing the hell out of those dirty rich people and their corporations, we can get 2 trillion dollars in ten years. Great! Except for the fact that fellow socialist Bernie Sanders estimates it would take $14 trillion over ten years to cover Medicare-for-All, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates it would take double that of Sanders’ estimates (28 trillion) to cover it. So annihilating the 1% doesn’t even get us 10% of the way to fully affording this agenda item.
And like I said earlier, this is just covering Medicare-for-All. If taxing the rich to the point of bankruptcy can’t get you 10% of the way to paying for Medicare-for-All, then you surely cannot afford any other item in the socialist agenda such as basic guaranteed income, welfare for the poor and illegal immigrants, free higher education and free housing. You’ll run out of money before anyone can be convinced of reelecting you (though with the Russian collusion story, the Left will go further and further towards eliminating elections altogether eventually if given the opportunity).
But Ocasio-Cortez is not done showing her ignorance. She then talks about implementing a new tax: “If we get people to pay their fair share (at this point, it’s not their fair share, it’s highway robbery), that’s $2 trillion in ten years. Now if we implement a carbon tax on top of that, so that we can transition and financially incentivize people away from fossil fuels, if we implement a carbon tax – that’s an additional amount, a large amount of revenue that we can have.”
She shows her ignorance in two different ways here: first, she doesn’t disclose even an estimated amount of extra revenue from the carbon tax. She has no idea how much it would be, but the likelihood is high that it doesn’t get close to the mugging of the rich that would take place with those high taxes. Second, even Ocasio-Cortez earlier estimated that “it’s going to take $3 trillion to $4 trillion to transition us to 100% renewable energy economy.”
So it would take roughly double the amount you would get from essentially mugging the rich to even pay for renewable energy, which we don’t even have the technology to do, let alone the money. So then, you can’t even pay for Medicare-for-All in the least, even with that carbon tax. And this is ignoring the fact that, with a carbon tax, people will move away from fossil-fuels, which might sound nice if you’re a liberal, except for the fact that doing so would mean that you progressively get less and less revenue from the tax. It wouldn’t be a constant if people move away from fossil-fuels, so they can’t even get up to the original numbers of robbing the rich and taxing fossil-fuel usage.
Finally, Ocasio-Cortez shows her ignorance by believing a department’s entire budget was actually a budget increase. “Then the last key, which is extremely important is reprioritization. Just last year we gave the military a $700 billion budget increase, which they didn't even ask for. They’re like ‘we don’t want another fighter jet!’ They’re like ‘don’t give us another nuclear bomb’, you know?”
No, I don’t know. First of all, she clearly has not spent any time with military advisors. Show me someone from the military who does not want another “fighter jet” and I’ll show you a liar. Second of all, we did not give the military a $700 billion budget increase. That number is their entire BUDGET! The Department of Defense requested $639 billion for Fiscal Year 2018 and we gave them roughly $70 billion more than requested, meaning the increase was $70 billion, not 700. So she’s either lying about this or is too ignorant to realize that we can’t possibly afford to give the military that much more money on top of what they already have.
Meaning she either wants to strip all of our defense budget from the military, rendering us a nation without a military, or someone’s gonna have the awkward job of telling her they can’t get nearly that much money pulled from the military.
I’ll say this again, this is only to cover Medicare-for-All. From what we have seen, we can’t even get close to paying for 10% of it by taxing the ultra-wealthy and corporations. Even if you taxed 100% of what corporations made (which, of course, would lead to financial ruin and unemployment of Biblical proportions) you still couldn’t fully afford Medicare-for-All.
Not that any of this matters to the Left. They don’t want to think too much about the details of how exactly they’re going to pay for stuff. They want to run on giving people free stuff! At the end of the day, the objective is not to actually give people free stuff. They don’t care about the people. They only want to get elected and to have control of this country.
Of course, they will try to implement Medicare-for-All and all the other socialist policies, but when they come face to face with the reality that they can’t possibly afford all this stuff, they will blame the opposition (that’s what they were doing with the failure that is Obamacare) and fix nothing, only making things worse for everyone.
This is what we see in Venezuela, North Korea, and other socialist countries. This is what we saw in the Soviet Union. What we will soon see in China and Europe. What we saw in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Socialism, communism, is a pipe-dream for people who don’t understand reality. It costs too much to create, let alone maintain a socialist country. Without free trade and free market systems, wealth is not created.
Establishing full-on communism would lead to a country in ruins, both fiscally and literally. Chaos would run amok. Violence is communism’s main export. It leads to ruin, disrepair and ultimately death. The death of countless people and an entire nation.
The idea that anyone outside the world of politics would support this is ludicrous. I get why the Democrats are embracing this. They think it will lead them to power and perhaps ultimate power. Power similar to Maduro’s power in Venezuela, where he can run elections that there’s no chance he could possibly lose. They seek ultimate power. They seek to have the power of the God they claim not to believe in. But as mere imperfect humans, they cannot have it. That doesn’t mean they won’t try, however. And if they have to destroy the world to even TRY to achieve His power, they’ll do it. Heck, they’re doing it already, aren’t they?
Regardless, this merely goes to show that socialism is mankind’s single worst idea ever.
“For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
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...