Earlier this week, President Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, where he was set to give a speech in front of the World Economic Forum. The speech he gave is perhaps one of his best speeches of his administration that not only lambasts the climate cult’s ridiculous fearmongering apocalyptic predictions but also gives a positive message of hope for the future of the country, and any country that follows a similar path, as all good presidents do.
Of course, as many speeches go, it is far too long for me to write out the entire transcript of it and make the points that I wish to make, so let us highlight some important parts.
The President began his speech by noting how the U.S. is “boldly embracing American energy independence” in order to protect our security and our economy, and not allowing us to become dependent on imported energy from “hostile nations.” He pointed out how “while many European countries struggle with crippling energy costs, the American energy revolution is saving American families $2,500 every year in lowering electric bills and… prices at the pump.”
He also pointed out that, with this independence and with allowing for innovation, U.S. companies and researchers are leading the way and “we are on the threshold of virtually unlimited reserves of energy, including from traditional fuels, LNG, clean coal, next-generation nuclear power, and gas hydrate technologies.”
This, of course, goes against the climate cult’s narrative that there will be fuel shortages if we continue to depend on fossil fuels and that dependency on such fuels is “not sustainable”. With fracking, we are capable of producing far more energy than before without needing to worry about any sort of “shortage”. Of course, fracking is considered taboo to the climate cult not because it is not a good energy option, but because it IS a good energy option and it helps the fossil fuel industry and helps to continue generating energy without the need of the expensive and ineffective garbage the cult would force upon us.
As a result of these strategies, fuel is cheaper across the board and we are far from experiencing any sort of shortages. And at the same time, Trump noted that he is “proud to report the United States has among the cleanest air and drinking water on Earth… and we just came out with a report that, at this moment, it’s the cleanest it’s been in the last 40 years. We’re committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world.”
This is not good news for the climate cult whatsoever. Their entire shtick is that we are killing the planet and making it dirtier and harder to live in, so we must turn over all of our rights and liberties to the government so that they can “solve” this “issue”. But reality is, as I have said time and time again, not what they make it out to be. Despite our usage of fossil fuels, we have clean water and air, which is far more than anyone could say about communist China. This is because we have the ability to use fossil fuels without compromising the environment around us.
But regardless, here is what I think is the best part of the speech:
“This is not a time for pessimism; this is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action. But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-teller – and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ‘70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
“We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong, and unyielding bastion of freedom. In America, we understand what the pessimists refuse to see: that a growing and vibrant market economy focused on the future lifts the human spirit and excites creativity strong enough to overcome any challenge – any challenge by far.”
The President is absolutely right about everything he said here. Despite how eternally pessimistic and angry and outraged the climate cult and the whole of the global Left is, this is a time for optimism, not pessimism. At least in the U.S., we are seeing one of the greatest economies this country has ever seen, with unemployment rates the lowest they’ve been in 50 years across all demographics, the stock markets often hitting new record highs, consumer confidence being at all-time highs, and being the furthest away from a recession as an economy can get. Wages are growing, particularly for lower classes, and people are making more money than before, while also saving more than before thanks to tax cuts.
All of the apocalyptic predictions we are hearing lately (the climate puppet recently said we only have 8 years now to fix climate change and Michael Moore also chimed in and said that we only have four years to fix it, probably having said this after eating Taco Bell) are not only scientifically unsound and unwarranted, but they serve the purpose of trying to scare people into giving up their rights. Even the climate puppet, who was also at this economic forum, said “I said I wanted you to panic” and does not feel that that is in any way wrong or dangerous because of the purpose: to drive fear into people’s hearts.
Of course, she failed, as have many others, but the point remains that they are fearmongers. It is only fitting, then, that Trump would point out their ridiculous past “prophecies” that have very obviously not come true because they were not going to come true.
They predicted starvation, mass overpopulation, acid rain, fuel shortages, increase in strength and frequency of storms and mass extinction. In September of last year, I wrote an article detailing *some* of over 40 different predictions these partisan hacks have made over the years with not a single one of them having come true. They have no credibility whatsoever, nor do they have the science backing them up.
Whenever you hear them saying “the ice caps are melting”, you eventually find that there is more ice today than when that prediction was made. Every prediction they have made has not panned out and eventually, people begin to catch on to the b.s., or at least, that’s the desired outcome (indoctrination in our schools does a good job of fooling kids into continuing to believe this nonsense).
And we all know why it is that they make these apocalyptic predictions, even though none of them have any sort of chance of coming true. It’s as the President said and as I pointed out earlier: to obtain absolute power to dominate, transform and rule every aspect of our lives. They want to tell us what kind of lightbulb to use, not because it is good for us (many of the bulbs the Obama administration regulated onto us can be poisonous if broken) or for the environment, but because they want to be able to order us around – to have dominion over our lives as though they were God Himself.
Even the ones who do not believe in any sort of god believe in the power that God has and want it for themselves. This is the aim of the climate cult, but hopefully, reason will win out in the end and these people will be reformed, leaving behind the disastrous and destructive ideologies of the cult in favor of the Light of God.
Regardless of whether or not that will happen (I do believe some people within the climate cult can be saved), returning to Trump, as I said, this is perhaps one of his best speeches as president. Of course, he spoke far more than what I wrote about, but the rest of the speech basically was about recognizing the successes of the past as a result of people’s hopes and their ability to make progress without being impeded by a pesky government.
The message he wanted to give to the people of Davos was one of hope for the future. That so long as the human mind is free and entrepreneurs are not impeded in their desire to enrich themselves and improve people’s lives in however small or large manner, there will be hope for the future. Sure, there is far more hope to be found in the Lord than in Man, but as he was speaking in front of an economic forum, it makes sense that this sort of hope is what he would want to drive.
And he’s not wrong to do this either, as a free market economy is far more capable of granting people hope than a communist economy where few things are private.
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Pop culture. Mainstream Media. Social Media. Politics. All of these things are dominated by the Left to one extent or another. All of these things feature Left-wing ideologies, ideas, policies, beliefs and objectives. All of these things make you believe that the loud voices you hear are the mainstream, popular and majority opinions. But that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Gallup recently ran a poll to find where Americans find themselves on the political spectrum and the results can be eye-opening for some, or perhaps, most people. According to Gallup, while there are more Americans who align themselves with the Democrat Party than Republican (47-42%, respectively), the number of conservatives in this country is far bigger than the number of liberals and that gap is growing.
Gallup surveyed nearly 30,000 people (so a massive sample size) and found that 37% of Americans view themselves as “conservative”. This number is up from the previous time this survey was taken (2018) when 35% identified as “conservative” so a two-point increase. But while the number of conservatives grew in 2019, the number of liberals SHRANK.
According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify themselves as “liberal” is just 24%, down from 26% the previous year. 35% of Americans identified as “moderate” though it’s possible that a decent number of them are conservatives who were too afraid to say they are conservative out of fear of scorn or persecution and one cannot really blame someone for this.
As I said, pop culture, the MSM, social media, etc. are all DOMINATED by Left-wing rhetoric and ideology. You hear the biggest names in Hollywood or in sports often lambasting the President or even the country itself. You watch the news and most of it is negative towards Trump and those who support him. You go on social media and you often see Left-wing babble trending on Twitter or conservatives being censored or conservative videos getting taken down or conservative comments being flagged as “hate speech”, etc.
The loud voices of the Left are so overwhelming and frequent that you can’t help but think they are in the majority. And THAT is the reason they are so loud. They don’t have the numbers. The vast majority of people do not agree with everything these self-righteous hypocrites have to say. The vast majority of people do not agree with them. But as they live in their own narcissistic bubble and believe they are the most important and intelligent people on Earth, they believe most people do agree with them and couldn’t possibly stand that most people do not, so they delude themselves.
Remember when Rose McGowan tweeted that “52% of us humbly apologize” for the drone strike that killed Soleimani? She sincerely believes that 52% of the country is Left-wing 24/7 and agrees with her and the Left on basically everything. She believes 52% of the country is with her on this, but according to The Hill, 47% of American voters supported the strike against Soleimani, while only 40% disapproved (sample size: 1,995 registered voters). Granted, not every American is a registered voter, but when it comes to election time, these are the people that matter the most.
The vast majority of people agreed with the Soleimani strike, even if Rose McGowan and Michael “Higher BMI than IQ points” Moore deeply apologize to the terror-supporting Iranians. This is because the vast majority of Americans DO NOT agree with these idiotic celebrities.
Now, when it comes to party lines, most people align roughly with what would be expected. Among Republicans, 73% identify as “conservative”, which ties the highest number in the last 25 years, while only 4% identify as “liberal”. 21% of Republicans also identify as “moderate”. For Democrats, 49% identify as liberal, 36% are “moderate” and 14% are “conservative”.
As far as Independents go, 45% identify as “moderate”, 30% are “conservative” and 21% are “liberal”.
41% of American men consider themselves “conservative”, 36% of men are “moderate” and 20% are “liberal”. 33% of women are “conservative”, 35% are “moderate” and 28% are “liberal”. If I had to guess at least one reason, even if not the biggest reason, for this disparity, I would guess that abortion would have to be a reason for it. Women are the ones who get pregnant after sex, so it stands to reason that there would be more liberal women than liberal men because liberal women do not want the responsibility of child-bearing and rearing. I’m not sure if this is the biggest reason for this disparity, but I think it’s at least one, fairly major, reason for it.
Looking at age, we find that those 18-29 tend to be more liberal than conservative (30-26% respectively), but not by all that much and the vast majority of them are moderate (40%). This makes a lot of sense to me. Plenty of young people naively support socialism and communism, so it stands to reason that more of them are more “liberal” than “conservative”, but the difference is not overwhelming. And it also makes sense that so many are “moderate” because younger people tend to try and find themselves and what they believe, not holding on to anything solid politically just yet, but discovering what they believe for themselves to be morally right (though morality is determined by God, but that’s an argument for another time).
Of course, I fall within this age range, being a Millennial, but I would consider myself to be solidly conservative (and I would hope all of my articles would reflect that). For people ages 30-49, 34% are “conservative” as opposed to 26% of “liberals”, with 37% being “moderate”. 50-64 age range, you find 42% “conservative”, 34% “moderate” and 21% “liberal”. 65+, you get 46% “conservative”, 29% “moderate” and 21% “liberal.”
This also makes sense, in my opinion. Winston Churchill is (perhaps falsely) attributed for saying: “If you aren’t a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative by 40, you have no brain.” We tend to be most liberal when we are young because our minds are not yet fully developed and we are more prone to act based on emotion rather than logic (which is why the Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16). Young people do not know the truths of the world, at least usually. They have to go out and discover them for themselves, which is why virtually no one takes the 17-year-old climate puppet seriously.
As one gets older, one would (hopefully) get wiser as well. If one obtains more knowledge as time goes on, one obtains more wisdom as well. We gain this through time and experience. Young people do not have the experience and wisdom that comes with age that older people do, so they tend to be a bit more liberal because being liberal means being more illogical (sorry to any liberal reading this, but the ideologies of socialism are a pipe-dream and not at all realistic or possible to achieve with zero negative consequence).
But moving on from age, we also find distinctions in levels of education. Those with a postgraduate degree are, to no one’s surprise, more liberal than conservative (36-26%, respectively) though an equal number of people to liberals are also “moderate”. Those who have graduated college find a shift, however, where 32% are “conservative”, 38% are “moderate” and 28% are “liberal”. Those with only “some college” education are 38% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 22% “liberal”. Those without any college education are 43% “conservative”, 33% “moderate” and 19% “liberal”.
I’ve said this countless times before and I’ll say it again: college is where logic goes to die. The effects of Marxism in college campuses are clear for all to see. This plays at least some role in the liberalism of young people, and a particularly big role in the socialist and communist romantization in young people’s minds. Despite the fact that communism is an ideology of death and destruction, it’s been romanticized by Marxist college professors seeking to mold young people’s minds the way that they want and create more and more Marxist puppets. How else can one come to find someone as economically illiterate as AOC having an economics degree?
The longer people subject themselves to college indoctrination, the more likely they are to come out the other side a mini-Lenin.
Regardless, next we find people with different incomes and something fairly surprising. Those who make $100,000 or more are 36% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 26% “liberal”. Income range from $40,000 to $100,000, you find 38% are “conservative”, 35% “moderate”, and 25% “liberal.” For those who make less than $40,000, you find 36% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 24% “liberal”.
This is interesting to me because of just how close together each of them is. The entire schtick of communism, at least as Marx put it, was all about class warfare and the “inequalities” of income between the proletariat and the bourgeoise. Of course, he was mostly talking about Germany and the U.K., not about the U.S., as it wasn’t a world superpower at the time, but still. For all the talks in communist circles about class warfare, the numbers seem to be roughly the same regardless of income. Actually, according to these numbers, you are more likely to be liberal if you make MORE money than less. This, I suppose, is where one would tend to find the term “limousine liberal” to make a lot of sense.
Regarding race, Non-Hispanic whites are 41% “conservative”, 33% “moderate” and 23% “liberal”. Non-Hispanic blacks are 23% “conservative”, 44% “moderate” and 28% “liberal”, which makes sense considering black people tend to vote Democrat (as self-destructive and damaging as that is for the black communities around the country). Hispanics are 35% “conservative”, 37% “moderate” and 25% “liberal”, which makes sense because Latinos tend to be more closely tied to the nuclear family (though plenty do also tend to vote Democrat, most likely because many are here illegally and the Democrats are the open borders party).
Finally, when it comes to region, you find that those living in the East are 32% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 28% “liberal.” In the Midwest, you find 38% “conservative”, 35% “moderate” and 23% “liberal”, which makes sense and aligns well with usual electoral maps. In the South, you find 41% “conservative”, 35% “moderate” and 21% “liberal”. And in the West coast, interestingly enough, you find 34% “conservative”, 36% “moderate” and 27% “liberal”.
That last one is interesting considering the West coast is often considered the “Left” coast because of the tendency of those states to vote Democrat. But there are a good number of farmers and land owners in those states, and farm and land owners tend to be conservative, even if the biggest population centers in those states are heavily liberal.
But regardless, it is interesting to note just how truly few people in this country actually would consider themselves “liberal”. There are far more conservatives and “moderates”, generally people who are “center-right” in this country than there are Leftists, even if what we often see and hear does not outright reflect that.
Again, Leftists need to be loud because they don’t have the numbers. They infect every organization they can to appear to be the mainstream and popular opinion, when that generally isn’t what they are. Most people are either conservative or at least do not agree with most, all, or even some liberal policies or ideologies. And I can only hope that the gap between conservative and liberal continues to grow, not only for the sake of the country, but also so that many might turn their lives over to Christ.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Wanna Guess How Many Times Venezuela’s Electrical Grid Failed In 2019? Hint: Answer Is Almost Six Digits
Back in March, Venezuela suffered one of its longest and worst blackouts, plunging the Latin American country into darkness and basically sending it back into the Middle Ages.
As a result of this blackout, an advocacy group was created, The Committee for the Affected by Blackouts, and said committee recently made an announcement counting the number of times the socialist country’s electrical grid failed just in this calendar year alone.
The answer? The electrical grid failed 80,700 times just in 2019 alone. That’s 80,700 times that people in Venezuela had to endure blackouts as a result of the atrocious socialist policies that dominate the country in the span of a single year.
According to Venezuelan news outlet “Runrun.es”, “In 2019, 80,700 electrical failures were counted nationwide, which means that those that occurred the previous year were doubled, in accordance with the statement made by Aixa Lopez, president of the Blackout Affected Committee.”
Forgive the broken English (that will be more prevalent as we go along), as the original was, of course, in Spanish, and this comes as a result of Google Translate.
Aixa Lopez, the aforementioned president of the committee, noted that one particular national power plant, the El Guri Hydroelectric Power Plant, was culpable for many of the blackouts throughout the country. Lopez said: “We come from nine blackouts nationwide and what has been recurring in these nine blackouts? That it is the El Guri Hydroelectric Power Plant where the problem arises… Plantacentro [the plant’s administrators] must contribute 2,600 megawatts to the system and since 2018, we have been warning that Plantacentro is contributing 385 megawatts to the system and this month it has zero.”
Lopez also explained that, while Caracas enjoys greater (though not guaranteed) electrical stability (largely because that is where Maduro lives and he can’t stand to live without electricity, though he forces his people to do so), the rest of the country experiences around three or four blackouts PER DAY.
“There is no sabotage here, gentlemen. We have 10 years studying [sic] the SEN because it affects our quality of life. Without electricity, there is no progress, we cannot work, banks, points, elevators, transport chaos [sic] does not work, then we have to focus on seeing what is happening and unfortunately the national government has not taken the necessary corrective measures so that the SEN can provide this energy that we all need,” said Lopez in a statement.
Now, ignoring the broken English (again, Google Translate), there are a couple of points I want to discuss. First, Lopez mentions that there was “no sabotage”. The reason for this is that Maduro, being the socialist that he is, does not blame himself or the socialist system for the blackouts.
Instead, the socialist despot blames the United States, specifically Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), for the country’s blackouts, saying that they are the result of “hacking” and “electrical war”.
Back during the March blackout, Maduro wrote: “The electrical war announced and directed by the imperialist United States against our people will be defeated!” And following the blackout, Maduro said the following on national television: “The cruel attack that the U.S. empire has carried out against the electrical system has been defeated and progressively reversed, thanks to the effort of Venezuelan experts and hackers who are working hard to restore tranquility to People.”
I don’t think I even need to explain why this is utter bull crap coming from this guy. But it’s notable nonetheless because this is just what socialists/communists do: blame others for their failures.
The socialist system of Venezuela has forced millions of Venezuelans to live like it’s 1780 and Maduro blames this not on himself or the actual system – the actual culprits – but on the U.S., as though we somehow hacked the electrical grid of the entire country.
Lopez already explained how one particular power plant was producing far less than it should, if it even produces at all, in order to be effective and functional. THAT is the reason for the blackouts, but I don’t think I need to go into too much detail to explain why Maduro is lying his butt off here.
Again, the point isn’t that he is lying, but that this is just what socialists/communists do: whatever problem exists, it’s not their fault. It’s someone else’s fault, be it a lower-ranked individual (who subsequently gets executed for “treason”), or an entirely different country. The Venezuelan people are starving and dying, not because of the “great and brilliant” Maduro and his “fantastic and just” socialist policies, but because the U.S., particularly one U.S. Senator, launched an “electrical war” against the grid of the country.
The worst part, though, is that many people (at least, plenty in the U.S), might actually come to believe that. I mean, there are people here in the States who believe Venezuela and Cuba are failed socialist/communist states, not because that’s what the idiotic and dangerous ideology brings, but because “the CIA” caused them to be this way. It’s denialism at its worst and those who profess such conspiracy theories are severely lacking in the upstairs department.
The other point I wanted to discuss from Lopez’s quote is with regard to the fact that there “is no progress” without electricity and that people can’t work. Again, this is just what socialism brings. People physically are unable to work because of the failed state that socialist Venezuela is.
Now, do you want to know something else that I find pretty interesting and disgustingly ironic? Reuters had a story recently that talked about how the Venezuelan government set up Christmas lights in major Venezuelan cities.
Unsurprisingly, this caused many to be outraged, noting how inappropriate it is for the cities to set up Christmas lights when they chronically suffer from blackouts.
One truck driver even told Reuters: “How can they spend all this money lighting up the entrance to the bridge when the rest of the bridge is dark?” The truck driver was referencing how a bridge in Maracaibo City was elegantly decorated with Christmas lights, but the bridge lacked actual street lights for cars to use.
One irate Venezuelan Twitter user tweeted: “Christmas came to the Guaire River and its feces, better representation of what Venezuela is today, impossible. The revolution lighting the s**t that Venezuelans have to eat every day.” (Again, please forgive the broken English).
Another user noted how “The amount of Christmas lights they are placing on the Guaire River at the height of Las Mercedes is grotesque. They use up to trucks and Corpoelec personnel for installation. That is a slap in the face of millions of people who suffer blackouts on a daily basis.”
Certainly, such a display could be considered (with very good reason) a slap in the face. Setting up Christmas lights in places that are not even lit up is a massive middle finger to the Venezuelan people, while the fat cat Maduro enjoys plenty of electricity in his own home.
Not only does socialism bring about such suffering and pain (and more), it brings with it a dictator who will boldly lie to his citizens and even mock them. The guy is not even the legitimate president of the country anymore, but because he’s a socialist dictator, he has refused to leave office and the military is on his side.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: socialism is a cancer in this world.
“Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to them.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Socialism brings with it a slew of massive problems that are extremely difficult to overcome, which is why the economic and governmental system is basically always a death sentence for any nation. Venezuela is currently experiencing this slow and painful death.
If they aren’t finding problems with gas and oil (despite being one of the most oil-rich nations in the world), they are finding problems with food sources. If not that, it’s medical problems. If not that, it’s electricity problems. If not that, it’s election integrity problems. Usually, these problems are not mutually exclusive and happen all at once. And most recently, we find that the country’s education system is all but obliterated.
The New York Times (of all people) published a story highlighting the fact that many kids pass out during class or school-hours in general due to a lack of food.
“Hundreds of children filed into their school courtyard to hear a local Catholic bishop lead prayers for their education… By the end of the 15-minute ceremony, five children had fainted and two of them were whisked away in an ambulance. The faintings at the primary school have become a regular occurrence because so many students come to class without eating breakfast, or dinner the night before.”
What’s more, many students have altogether stopped attending school ever since the schools stopped providing lunches. Others have also stopped attending due to an inability by parents to afford school uniforms.
In general, kids are far more encouraged to get a job and begin to help in providing their families with food and money than go to school. This sort of thing happens in two places: the Middle Ages and socialist countries.
I’ve already explained in multiple articles that socialism brings people to slavery and to antiquated times – times when people lived far worse lives and with less-advanced commodities afforded to them.
But a lack of food is far from the only problem the education system in Venezuela has to face. A lack of teachers is also a major concern. With the GDP per capita in Venezuela at about $2,500 a year, compared to the $55,000 in the US, teachers make almost nothing, as the NYT further reports:
“’An entire generation is being left behind,’ said Luis Bravo, an education researcher at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. ‘Today’s education system doesn’t allow children to become meaningful members of society.’”
“The government stopped publishing education statistics in 2014. But visits to more than a dozen schools in five Venezuelan states and interviews with dozens of teachers and parents indicate that attendance has plummeted this year. Many schools are shuttering in the once-wealthy nation as malnourished children and teachers who earn almost nothing abandon classrooms to scratch out a living on the streets or flee abroad…”
“In Venezuela’s most-populous state of Zulia, up to 60 percent of about 65,000 teachers have deserted in recent years, according to estimates by Alexander Castro, head of the local teacher’s union. ‘They tell us that they prefer painting nails for a few dollars than work for a minimum wage,’ Mr. Castro said… Maracaibo’s biggest school no longer has any functioning bathrooms. It was designed for 3,000 students; only 100 now show up.”
This, of course, is pretty bad news for the future of the country. With few children and even fewer teachers being around, there will be less high-skill workers available in the future. Children who perhaps had ambitions to become doctors and help out sick people might no longer have such an option due to hunger, a family struggling to just survive and needing all available hands on deck to bring in money and food, and people actually qualified to teach children becoming more and more scarce as time goes on.
And the biggest culprit here is none other than socialism. I’m not surprised whatsoever that the government of Venezuela stopped publishing education statistics in 2014. They would’ve been embarrassed and told that something was going terribly wrong in their little paradise.
If you remember, back in February of this year, Univision’s Jorge Ramos was detained by Maduro’s officials, who had him and his crew thrown into a security room and their equipment confiscated after Ramos made the mistake of showing Maduro, whom he was interviewing, a video of kids rummaging through a trash truck in search of food.
Clearly, Maduro doesn’t like to be told or shown that his socialist paradise is anything but that, and punished the American journalist as much as he could without violating international law. So it’s no surprise that in 2014, the same Maduro had ordered for information relating to education statistics to no longer be published and made known to the public. Anything that makes him look like a terrible leader and anything that could jeopardize his own power must be eliminated, even if it’s just a spreadsheet.
This is the way that socialist/communist dictators act. Maduro doesn’t care that his people are starving. He doesn’t care that there are electricity problems. He doesn’t care that there is a gas and oil shortage. He doesn’t care that people are dying due to the extremely shoddy healthcare system. He doesn’t care that schools are essentially being abandoned both by teachers and by students who can no longer afford to attend what are supposed to be considered “free” education facilities. He doesn’t care that children have to rummage through garbage in search of food. In his own eyes, he’s God.
He thinks he is beloved because everyone around him would risk execution if they told him THE TRUTH. He thinks there is no actual problem in Venezuela and any problems that may exist are either due to the “far-right” or they are just fabrications created by said “far-right”. He lives in his own little world, ignoring what his socialist policies are doing to his people, and living a grand life in his own palace.
He is the epitome of a socialist elite, much as the elites in D.C. are. These people live in their own little bubble, which is why the American elites bring in Harvard and Stanford Law professors (who have extensive records of anti-Trump sentiment and one of them might’ve become a Supreme Court Justice had Hillary won) to impeachment hearings to further spread hearsay and pass it off as objective fact. They think most Americans will be impressed by Ivy League Law professors but this very sentiment proves the elitist, snobbish culture of the Washington Elites.
Maduro is not too different, only he already has the kind of power the American Left wishes they had. But the problems that face Venezuela, though will absolutely never be remedied by Maduro, largely due to the fact that his ideology is the biggest reason for these problems in the first place, will only get worse as time goes by.
Like I said, kids not going to school is largely a problem for a country, and particularly, a country’s economy. Now, the economy is already in the toilet and no efforts are being made to improve it, but the future only looks worse for Venezuela if the trend continues. Never mind being a third-world country, Venezuela runs the risk of outright becoming a nation that is centuries behind the modern world.
Most children, if this trend continues, will only know how to perform manual labor or other generally low-skilled jobs. Jobs like doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and other generally high-skilled jobs will become more and more rare unless something drastic happens that changes things.
This is what rampant socialism does to a country. The U.S. wouldn’t be very different if it implemented socialism and totally, or mostly, replaced capitalism. The problems we see happening in Venezuela are problems that can happen in this country and, funny enough, tend to happen wherever there are socialists in charge. California is just one of these examples and would in all likelihood be a failing economy if it weren’t part of the United States.
Socialism/communism, like I said in my previous article, is a plague that must be eliminated completely.
“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I personally do not blame you if you had to read that title more than a couple of times. It makes as little sense to me as it does to you. However, this is where we are today.
In an open letter by nine Cuban democratic socialists, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) received major condemnation for their support of the Castro regime.
The letter read: “The support for Castroism revealed in resolution 62 of the recent Convention of the Democratic Socialists of the United States, held in Atlanta, Georgia, can only be explained by two reasons: either the American Socialist Democrats do not know the Cuban reality or they are not socialist or democratic.”
I can guarantee that they do not know the “Cuban reality” and are certainly not democratic, but I just have to ask: do these people not know what socialism is?
I will get back to that point momentarily. To give you some context, Resolution 62 is a resolution by the DSA to support the Castro regime and condemn American and allied sanctions against the communist state.
Resolution 62 states:
“Be it resolved, the DSA formally declares itself in solidarity with the Cuban socialist struggle. The DSA unequivocally condemns the economic blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States and its allies, the American military presence in Guantanamo Bay, and any sanctions and actions that would undermine the self-determination of the Cuban people. Be it further resolved, the DSA will move to join the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), an American progressive organization dedicated to opposing acts of imperialist aggression against the Republic of Cuba. Be it finally resolved, within thirty days after passing, the DSA will submit its application for full membership to the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), and will take active measures to pursue full membership status.”
In other words, these communist scumbags support the communist regime of Castro and his enslavement of the Cuban people. There is no “Cuban socialist struggle” because the socialists are the ruling class there and all dissenters are either imprisoned or executed. The Cuban people are not allowed to self-determine their fate because the communist regime determines that – that’s the whole point of socialism. There is no “imperialist aggression” against Cuba; it’s a state that murders and enslaves its own citizens. America is sort of against that kind of practice which is why there are economic sanctions placed on it. What’s more, it’s far from a “Republic.” The U.S. is a Republic. Cuba is a communist slave state.
But what is interesting about this whole situation is, again, the letter sent by the Cuban socialists who are seemingly against the communist Castro regime and against the DSA regarding their support of it… somehow.
Returning to the letter:
“You (the DSA) have been in solidarity with a regime maintained by force of arms, murder, imprisonment, repression and compulsory exile of the opponents, which has not held free and democratic elections for more than 60 years, which systematically violates massive [sic] and blatantly the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Cuban people and is sustained by the repression and monopoly of the economy, information, education and public health.”
“They have supported a regime that appropriated by force all lands, industries, factories and large, medium and small companies, private or associated and made them property of a bureaucratic state, which exploits the Cuban workers in slavery and it blocks the economic development of the country, of independent companies of the state of all sizes, whether private or cooperative and the welfare of Cubans.”
Reading just these two paragraphs, you would think they were written by capitalistic people making a very good case against socialism/communism. But nope. Immediately following these paragraphs, we find the rest of the letter:
“A regime with these characteristics cannot be considered democratic or socialist. The Cuban independence apostle, Jose Marti, envisioned in his article the Future Slavery, the Cuban reality of today, where the all-powerful state and every decision maker would exploit the Cuban workers as if they were slaves, without rights and dependent on the gifts of a totalitarian government.”
“In Cuba, there is a system of modern slavery, undemocratic, Stalinist. Is that the social justice that the democratic socialists of the United States claim for that brother town [sic]? Whoever stands in solidarity with that regime does not know him, does not know what is happening in Cuba or is as imposter as Castroism.”
“Several Cuban democratic socialists, who have been facing the anti-popular, totalitarian and anti-socialist policies of Castroism for decades, for which some of us have suffered repression and exile, we reject any kind of solidarity with the Castro regime and we do not share the defense of it carried out in that convention for supposed or poorly-informed American democratic socialists.”
A scathing, if rather confusing, letter from such Cuban socialists to the DSA. But I just have to return to the question I asked earlier: do these people not know what socialism is?
They seemingly claim to be socialists, standing for socialist policies. And yet, they excoriate the communist, totalitarian and all-powerful government, condemn the forceful appropriation of private land and businesses and even go so far as to accuse the DSA members of not actually being democratic or socialist.
I agree that they are not democratic. If they were, they would call for Cuba to have democratic elections (much of a sham as they might be) and it hasn’t had one in over half a century. But there is no doubt in my mind that they are socialist, or at least support socialist policies. The desire and mission to make every single industry and land belong to the government is what socialism is all about. Communism is no different, and neither is Fascism.
I would say they are all different sides of the same coin, but that analogy doesn’t quite work because there’s three of them (socialism/communism/fascism). But fundamentally, they all strive for and attempt to achieve the same goal: government control of everything, every industry, every land, even every person.
Socialism, communism and fascism all make slaves out of their citizens. Case in point is Cuba, but Venezuela is no different, neither are North Korea or China or any other current communist country, and neither was the Soviet Union.
I suppose the only thing I could point to as being the reason for these socialists to be against communism is the forceful appropriation of lands and industries, but that still doesn’t make much sense to me. For one, if given the chance, socialists in America would take any and all industry and land by force. It’s the primary reason they are so against the Second Amendment and wish to strip us of our right to bear arms. Secondly, is the argument that the people should’ve given the land and industries willingly as opposed to forcefully taking it from them? Would that somehow make it less communist and more “socialist” as though there is much of a difference at all?
While I certainly appreciate anyone, particularly on the Left, attacking the DSA or socialists like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc., I was frankly taken aback by this letter, the condemnation and the accusations against the DSA.
These Cuban socialists, again, were making a terrific case AGAINST socialism/communism, not for it. Everything the communist regime in Cuba has done, from Che Guevara to the current Castro brother, is befitting of socialism/communism. There is no fundamental difference between the two and the result of both are the same: government control of everything.
Venezuela is no better off than Cuba is just because they voted socialism in as opposed to the Cubans who had an armed revolution to bring communism in. The end result is government ownership of every industry, land and person. All citizens of a socialist/communist country are subject to whatever the state determines is allowed and legal. Any dissent can and will be punished, being perceived as a threat to the communist state.
I find it very ironic that these Cuban socialists would excoriate the Castro regime and the DSA for sidling up to the Castro regime when they, themselves, ideologically believe in the same exact thing. Choosing between Castro and any other socialist is tantamount to choosing between Stalin and Hitler. The two hated each other and were enemies, but were ultimately one and the same: communist/socialist authoritarians, not because they chose to be but because that’s what their ideology naturally leads to.
“For the fool speaks folly, and his heart is busy with iniquity, to practice ungodliness, to utter error concerning the Lord, to leave the craving of the hungry unsatisfied, and to deprive the thirsty of drink.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Leftists blame just about everything on climate change. AOC blames climate change (and white people) for the death of her grandfather, who was killed when Hurricane Maria struck the Caribbean. They blame every single hurricane and storm on climate change, as though these things are completely and utterly unheard of before we had the combustion engine. And every time there is a wildfire in California, the Left blames climate change.
So it comes as no surprise that former California Governor Jerry Brown blames climate change, and more specifically, climate change deniers in Trump and fellow Republicans, for the wildfires in the state.
“California’s burning while the deniers make a joke out of the standards that protect us all,” Brown told the House Oversight Committee last Tuesday. “The blood is on your soul here and I hope you wake up. Because this is not politics, this is life, this is morality… This is real.”
Whatever grandstanding the communist former governor might attempt, it doesn’t erase the fact that he is completely wrong about what he’s saying. First of all, there is no scientific evidence that supports the idea that climate change causes forest fires. As I wrote in an article titled: “There Is No Link Between Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events,” 31 leading climate scientists gathered in Hohenkammer, Germany in 2006 and “ultimately concluded that any trend of rising ‘climate damages’ were primarily due to increased population densities and economic activity in the path of storms and that it was… not possible to determine what portion of those damages can be attributed to greenhouse gases.”
Secondly, according to the Los Angeles Times, the current California Getty Fire sweeping through L.A. was reportedly caused by a tree branch that was blown into power lines by high winds. Hard to argue that it was climate change that caused any of that.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the REAL reason for these wildfires are California’s idiotic environmental policies that make it almost impossible and extremely expensive to cut down trees. California’s forests are overgrown. The density of the forests are twice what they were 150 years ago and 10 of the state’s 20 biggest and deadliest fires have all occurred in the last decade alone, according to Climate Depot.
“Green sentiment has beaten back the timber industry, which might have put life-saving access roads into wild areas. It has prevented controlled burns (for fear of disrupting animal habitats) and barred even minor brush-clearing programs,” reports Climate Depot.
What’s insanely ironic, however, is that even Jerry Brown himself seems to have understood this principle at one point, despite what lunacy he attempts to peddle. You see, on his final day as governor, Jerry Brown admitted to having quietly signed bills removing some impediments to “controlled burns” and also allotting $190 million a year to “improve forest health and fire prevention,” according to Climate Depot.
So even the commie governor understood, at least privately, that the biggest reason for these wildfires in California are the state’s asinine environmental laws that do more harm than help.
Going back to what Brown told the House Oversight Committee, he said that the deniers were making jokes about the “standards that protect us all.” Not only is he fundamentally wrong here, as, again, ten of the state’s twenty biggest and deadliest wildfires have occurred in the last decade, so they don’t protect anything, but he even has seemingly disagreed with the notion that such standards protect the people of California by his quiet actions as governor.
“The blood is on your soul here and I hope you wake up. Because this is not politics, this is life, this is morality… This is real.” Those are words that Brown needed to have told himself. He was governor of California from 2011 to 2019. It’s his own policies that have endangered California’s citizens and Gavin Newsom has only continued such atrocious policies.
If the blood of those killed by the wildfires is on anyone, it would be on Brown, Newsom, the environmentalist wacko lobby and the whole of the American Left. THEY are the ones implementing such disastrous environmental policies that handcuff those who would keep the forests and the people safe. PG&E wouldn’t have to create massive blackouts if the powerlines were buried into the ground instead of choosing the “environmentally-friendly” options.
The “green” policies that Commiefornia Democrats espouse only cause harm to the environment and to the people of the state. In order for the forests to survive, they need to be well-maintained, which often times means controlled burns and allowing the timber industry to cut down a good number of trees. It also means burying powerlines that could cause out-of-control wildfires. Homelessness has also been cited as being a cause for some wildfires, considering fires have started in homeless camps, so employing socialist economic policies is also a massive detriment to the environment and to the people of California (at least to those living outside the 1%).
It isn’t climate change that causes these wildfires. It’s the idiotic and counter-productive environmental policies employed by the Left that cause these wildfires. Not that it matters to these people. As long as there are wildfires, they can fool people into believing climate change is causing them and taking “action” against them (meaning giving everything you own to the State) is the only viable “solution” to this problem. The Left is more than happy to see more and more wildfires that get more and more deadly as time goes on because of the sort of brainwashing they can do with it. Despite the very clear fact that it’s their policies that are causing this, as long as the attention can be drawn elsewhere, they won’t have any problems and will only succeed in getting what they want.
California is every bit the failed state that Venezuela is, only held up by the fact that it’s part of the United States and that carries with it the benefits of not completely tanking. Many are already leaving the state because of the terrible conditions it is in. What’s unfortunate is that many who leave the state move into other ones and vote for the same type of people who would employ the very policies that caused them to move out in the first place.
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The socialist lunatic Bernie Sanders is one of the most popular Democrat candidates for college students, enjoying 31% total approval and a three-point lead over Elizabeth Warren in a College Pulse election tracker poll. I can’t say I’m surprised, considering the socialist training camp that colleges and universities are in this day and age.
Regardless, as he is a very popular candidate, when students were asked to guess how much money Bernie gave to charity (with him being a millionaire and railing against the 1% for not “paying their fair share”), they believed he gave a good amount of his money to charity. After all, if he himself is so seemingly passionate about millionaires and billionaires giving as much money as possible, he ought to lead by example, right?
Answers to the question varied, with some believing he gave around 7 or 10% of his total income, some believing he gave upwards of 20%, and one believing he gave 75% of his total income to charity.
Clearly, with the sort of message Bernie gives, he is expected to live by the very ethos he spews. But the students were ultimately shocked to find that Bernie Sanders gave very little of his money to charity. As in, absurdly little, even by millionaire standards.
You see, according to tax returns that were released earlier this year, Bernie Sanders made $1,073,333 in a single year. Clearly, he’s doing pretty well for himself. Now, can you guess how much of that he actually gave to charity? Given the title, you might expect very little. Maybe 5%, or 4% or even 1%.
Well, he gave only $10,600. That’s less than 1%. More specifically, he gave 0.98% of his money to charity.
A few students acknowledged that it was “hypocritical” of Bernie to preach about the rich paying their “fair share” when he, himself, gives so little to charity.
Another student, funny enough, seemed to have retracted some of her support for Bernie after finding out the truth about his greed. Earlier in the video, she had said that she thinks he’s “definitely progressive… I think he’s what our country needs at this point.” However, she later backtracked that support by saying: “I’m not a particular Bernie fan.”
She also acknowledged the hypocrisy surrounding Bernie in this instance.
Another student even went so far as to roast Bernie for it, saying: “Well, he’s always talking about the one percent, maybe that’s the one percent he gave to charity.”
Now, one student defended Bernie, saying that it’s “his money, he can do what he wants with it.” Generally speaking, I agree. People should be allowed to do what they want with the money they earn. However, when they do that while simultaneously telling others how they CAN’T do that and how they HAVE to pay their “fair share”, then that comes across as highly hypocritical and utterly phony.
It’s sort of like this whole situation with China and the NBA. NBA players can speak freely and criticize whomever they want, but will shut up when doing so would affect their bank accounts. You can’t call Trump a “dictator” while also ignoring the actual dictatorial behavior and actions of Xi “Winnie the Pooh” Jinping.
You can’t lecture the 1% about “paying their fair share” when you give LESS THAN 1% OF YOUR OWN MONEY TO CHARITY! And yet, that’s precisely what Bernie Sanders does.
It’s disgustingly hypocritical and he should be called out on it and forced to address it. “Why do you talk about the 1% paying their ‘fair share’ when you yourself gave less than 1% of your money to charity? Would it be fair to say that you are not paying your ‘fair share’, then, by your own logic, Senator Sanders?” That’s the kind of question I would LOVE to hear from any reporter or journalist who actually had a spine, but we won’t, sadly.
Another student also came to Bernie’s defense, somewhat, by saying: “I don’t believe that the best way to help the poor is by giving to charity… The best way to support the poor is through systematic intervention – government intervention.”
Yeah, I believe the Venezuelan people, Chinese people, Russian people, Cuban people and any people who live under communist rule would want a word with you, fella.
How exactly does government intervention help the poor? By killing two infants after visiting a “wellness” clinic run by the government and having 24 other infants in “critical condition”? Because that’s what happened in communist Cuba recently.
By killing infant children despite the wishes of the parents just because the doctors deem further treatment to be “futile”? Because that’s what’s happening in Great Britain.
By having 90% of the population living in poverty? Because that’s what’s happening in Venezuela, according to a UN report.
How exactly does government intervention help anyone in anything? All we ever see, historically, is what a massive mistake it is to give the government so much control over people’s lives and livelihoods.
The government doesn’t lift people out of poverty; it does the exact opposite. Socialism doesn’t create – it only takes and destroys.
But getting back on the topic of Bernie Sanders, it’s pretty obvious that he is a massive hypocrite. If the fact he owns three homes wasn’t enough of an indication of that reality, or the fact that he made over a million dollars in a year, or the fact that, as a result of being a millionaire, he went from saying millionaires shouldn’t get tax breaks in 2015 to attacking millionaires and billionaires in 2016 and ’17 and then attacking only billionaires in 2019, then surely, the fact that he only gives 1% of his money to charity ought to spell it out pretty clearly.
Unfortunately, most Bernie supporters will not care to find out how much (or little) Bernie gave to charity, only taking in the words he speaks and believing them to be gospel, or will outright not believe it when someone reveals how little he gives to charity, so it’s not like this is going to hurt his candidacy so much.
However, you and I know the truth about Bernie Sanders: he’s the very “greedy capitalist” he demonizes and claims to despise. Even more so, considering the average millionaire gives 5.6% of his money to charity and Bernie gives so little, even by that comparison.
And while spreading that news around might not hurt him very much, it’s rather clear that at least some people might be a bit more hesitant about Bernie in the future. Again, one of the students said that Bernie was what we “needed” before finding out how little he gave and went on to say she wasn’t much of a “Bernie fan”.
Yeah, one could argue she was just trying to save face, but who knows how many people might find this truth about him and rethink their support for Bernie? Again, it likely wouldn’t be a lot, given that a couple of people in the Campus Reform video itself (below) came to Bernie’s defense in one way or the other, but not everyone thinks the same way.
The first step is education. The Left has taken that over and is the biggest reason for any success over the last 50 years.
“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 Marinelli.
The ever-crazy woke Left has made many spicy claims about a number of things being racist, sexist, homophobic, violent or any combination of all of them. Among these strange takes are the claim that a fantasy football auction was racist, that libraries are racist, that outdoor sports clubs are racist, that honoring a white man who helped black people is racist, that wanting a healthy body makes you a Nazi and that Disney’s “The Lion King” is fascist.
Now, we find another equally-as-ridiculous claim by a socialist professor who clearly is lacking in the mental health department.
You see, according to a University of Washington professor, the aquatic lifeform that lives in a pineapple under the sea is racist, sexist, “violent” and perpetuates colonialist thought and cultural appropriation.
You cannot make this stuff up.
In an academic journal, the professor explains that the fictional setting of Bikini Bottom is problematic because it is based on the nonfictional Bikini Atoll, a coral reef in the Marshall Islands which were used by the U.S. military to test nuclear bombs during the Cold War. The U.S. government, in order to use the area, had to relocate the people indigenous to the region and those indigenous people could never return because of the copious amounts of radiation.
This, in the lunatic professor’s mind, means that SpongeBob SquarePants, even if not intending to, represents colonialism on the part of America because the indigenous people of the area had to be relocated.
Now, call me crazy, but I think relocating an indigenous people somewhere far away from the site of nuclear detonations is the better option between that and letting them remain there until the nukes kill them. The U.S. didn’t have much of a choice as to where to test its nuclear arsenal because a lot of people live in different places and it’s better to move relatively smaller populations than to commit a nuclear holocaust.
Professor Barker, the lunatic professor in question, further tried to argue that SpongeBob had the “privilege” of “not caring about the detonation of nuclear bombs,” because one of the show’s writers, in explaining SpongeBob’s character, said the sentient sponge was “a guy who could get super excited about a napkin but wouldn’t care if there was an explosion outside.”
Because of this, Barker argues that “the detonations do not cause concern for the characters, as they did for the Bikinians, nor do they compromise SpongeBob’s frequent activities, like visiting hamburger joints or the beach with friends.”
Now, someone has to REALLY hate fun in order to seriously make any of these arguments and the ones that I will further share.
In case it’s not apparent to this University professor, who probably teaches her students the wonders of Marxism and veganism and is responsible for the “education” of many young people (God help them), SpongeBob SquarePants is a FICTIONAL CARTOON CHARACTER!
I don’t know how much clearer it can be based on the fact that he is two-dimensional and a TALKING AND WALKING SEA SPONGE!
The character was written as being a complete dunce, and as seasons went on, got even dumber. It’s an outright meme how dumb he is, when in one episode, you can see SpongeBob and Patrick celebrating over “saving Bikini Bottom” while it’s literally on fire and explosions are happening, as shown below:
But that scene is clearly played for a joke, which everyone gets and because it’s a fictional cartoon, so it doesn’t matter, at the end of the day, what happens to the city. By the end of the episode, the city will be just fine, no one ever really dies on the show, at least on-screen. It makes ZERO sense to accuse A FICTIONAL CARTOON SPONGE of having “privilege”.
But that’s not all she has to complain about. No, Leftists never run out of things to complain about.
She also tried to argue that, and bear with me here, SpongeBob and his friends continually perpetuate past injustices to the indigenous people through their “occupation and reclaiming” of the show’s nonfictional “Goo Lagoon”, what is essentially an underwater beach.
This, Barker argues, means that the setting of the show and the fact that “Goo Lagoon” is a place SpongeBob and his friends frequent is “symbolic violence” against indigenous people.
Furthermore, Barker insists that “although the U.S. government removed the people of Bikini from the atoll above the surface, this does not give license to SpongeBob or anyone else, fictitious or otherwise, to occupy Bikini.”
Basically, the place is off-limits to even cartoon characters because the U.S. military relocated the indigenous people so they could test nukes. That is the kind of illogical argument this woman is trying to make.
Barker added: “SpongeBob’s presence on Bikini Bottom continues the violent and racist expulsion of Indigenous peoples from their lands (and in this case their cosmos) that enables U.S. hegemonic powers to extend their military and colonial interests in the postwar era.”
Now, if you thought THAT was crazy, hold on because it gets worse. Not only is SpongeBob violent and racist for existing in Bikini Bottom, but the show is also guilty of “cultural appropriation of iconic Pacific Island representations” when they show that SpongeBob lives inside a pineapple and Squidward lives inside an Easter Island-like statue.
Barker also has problems with the theme song of the show because “the viewer becomes an unwitting participant in the co-opting of Bikini’s story and the exclusion of the Bikinian people.”
And while Barker does say that the creators of the show likely didn’t intend to be this “racist”, she does say that the area is “not theirs for the taking.”
I don’t know how much clearer it can be that this “argument” – and I give it a lot of undeserved credence by calling it that, even in quotation marks – doesn’t work because it’s A) a fictional town filled with sentient fish, and B) underneath the actual coral reef of the area where Indigenous people were, so there were never any Indigenous people in the FICTIONAL TOWN FILLED WITH SENTIENT FISH!
But moving on from this, the show is also largely sexist because Sandy Cheeks is the only female character in the main cast and Barker claims that the only reason Sandy exists in the first place is to boost gender diversity in the show.
Even the fact that SpongeBob is called “Bob” is problematic in her eyes because the name “Bob” “represents the everyday man, a common American male, muck like a ‘Joe’”. So any person named “Bob” or “Joe” represents the common American male, and that is apparently a bad thing.
Anyone want to mention to her that the current frontrunner for the Democrat nomination is named “Joe”? And he definitely does not represent the common American male. His policies and his mannerisms attempt to completely trash and abandon the common American male because that’s what his lunatic, extremist Party demands.
Now, I just have to ask: how does anyone possibly come up with nonsense like this without taking an insane amount of drugs? Because this is not what a normal, reasonable and at least average-intelligence human being theorizes.
Fans of the show, interestingly enough, theorized that the lore behind SpongeBob and the origin of Bikini Bottom is a result of those nuclear detonations and that the residents of Bikini Bottom sprung up as a result of the radiation from those nukes.
But one must really hate any and all kinds of fun and entertainment to try and claim that SpongeBob SquarePants is racist, sexist and a representation of American “colonialism” and injustice against Indigenous people simply because of the setting the show is BASED on.
Love or hate the cartoon, no one even reasonably sane would try and seriously levy these arguments on social media, let alone IN AN ACADEMIC JOURNAL!
If anyone made these arguments on social media, or even on mainstream media, they’d be laughed at and ridiculed to high heaven, so for a university professor to write this is particularly sad and troubling when you think about it.
Like I said before, this woman is a university professor, meaning that she has students whom she teaches. If this is what she has to say about A NICKELODEON CARTOON, I can’t imagine what she might say about things like capitalism, social justice, Karl Marx, Trump, etc. (though I doubt they stray too far from things like “orange man bad” or “communism is better than capitalism”).
If you remember, I mocked the Washington Post columnist who argued that “The Lion King” was fascistic. But the difference between someone like that barnacle-head and this one is that this one influences younger generations and molds their minds to what she wants.
Obviously, not everyone she teaches likely will be molded into her very own Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth), but considering how radical-Leftist many college students are, I can see that people like her are a major reason for it.
I’ve long maintained that colleges aren’t places of education but rather indoctrination, as dissent and opposing thought is largely shut down and utterly maligned in most college campuses. When arguments and opposing thought are banned, this is the kind of nonsense that springs up: calling things that have literally nothing to do with racism racist.
If you want to know why half of Millennials are socialists, there is your answer. They are being TAUGHT by professors who find everything racist, including their own skin tone if they are white (and most of them are). They are being molded into communists by these people, not because it makes sense, but because the alternative is not only not taught, but basically banned from colleges and publicly demonized.
Violence against conservatives in college campuses are rather routine and any conservative’s attempt at letting their opinions be heard is more-often-than-not shut down by either other students or even campus faculty and police.
This is the danger of an unchecked and unopposed Left. They dictate what the rules are and what they aren’t. Even progressives aren’t exactly safe, because what used to be considered progressive in the past is not considered “progressive enough” today. You are branded a homophobe, racist Nazi if you oppose transgenderism or pedophilia, even if you support gay marriage.
Even Ellen DeGeneres caught some major heat from radical Leftists for hanging out with former President George W. Bush during a football game. While Bush is hardly a conservative, he is considered a war criminal by the radical Left, so DeGeneres, one of the Left’s biggest stars because she is simultaneously a woman and gay (yes, that’s basically all it takes), is maligned for even trying to be friendly to Bush.
The Left is the epitome of hatred and evil, if these two things don’t make that case enough. To claim a fictional sea sponge is racist just because he lives in a fictional town UNDERNEATH the site of a nuclear test that forced Indigenous people to move because the military didn’t want to nuke them is utterly ridiculous at the least.
It’s crazy that in a website about politics and religion, I am forced to defend SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS from uber-Left lunatics trying their hardest to be “woke”.
May God help the students that this crazy woman teaches and may God help the woman herself, as she clearly is in serious need of the Love of God.
1 Peter 3:9
“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the biggest and funniest ironies in the climate alarmist cult is the fact that the solutions they present, at least with regards to alternative energy, are not only unnecessary and unable to replace the capabilities of natural gas and coal, but also have a tendency to severely backfire on the supposed intentions of their implementation.
What do I mean? Well, recently, Duke Energy, a North Carolina energy company, asked for a waiver of the state’s emission standards because its solar program releases more pollution into the atmosphere than its natural gas production does.
According to North State Journal: “A seven-month investigation and numerous public information requests have revealed the move to increase solar power might be leading to an increase in the very emissions alternative energy sources aim to reduce. Duke spokeswoman Kim Crawford confirmed that increased solar power on the state’s electric grid is increasing emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), a dangerous air pollutant. She said that reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could also reverse if current solar growth continues without policy changes.”
So let me get this straight: solar energy, one of the alternative energy sources the Left pines for and claims is a far better alternative to fossil fuels, natural gas, etc., not only emits an air pollutant in nitrogen oxide, which can cause asthma in children and other respiratory problems in vulnerable populations, as well as contributing to smog and acid rain, according to The American Lung Association, but it could also reverse reductions of CO2 if the program continues to grow without any sort of policy changes?
The very energy source that is SUPPOSED to reduce carbon emissions could do the exact opposite of its original intent if it only continues to grow, AND it could emit a lot more nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere?
The irony is too rich.
Returning to the North State Journal, “Under its current permits in the heavily regulated market, Duke must completely shut down the backup combustion turbines when solar peaks under a full sun, then restart them when the sun recedes… Without any solar power in the mix, ‘a typical combined cycle combustion turbine emits NOx at approximately 9-11 lb/hr., assuming 24 hours of ‘normal’ operation,’ Crawford said. That is equivalent to 264 pounds of NOx emissions daily. When those same plants are operated to supplement solar power facilities, daily emissions more than double to 624 pounds a day, based on a table in Dukes application.”
So when combustion turbines work without supplementing solar, that is considerably better for the environment than when it does supplement solar energy? Forgive me, I might actually laugh out loud.
But wait, there’s another problem with solar. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Federal biologists say about 6,000 birds die from collisions or immolation annually while chasing flying insects around the [Mojave Desert] facility’s three 40-story towers, which catch sunlight from five square miles of garage-door-size mirrors to drive the plant’s power-producing turbines.”
So not only does solar emit more nitrogen oxide and have the capability of reversing reductions in CO2, its chief objective (at least according to the media), but it also stands to kill birds and perhaps other animals because it fries them?
I already knew that wind power turbines were a massive hazard for birds, as a 2013 Forbes magazine article reported those things kill around 600,000 birds every year, with that number possibly being higher due to wind companies not having the obligation of publicly stating how many birds their turbines kill each year, but solar is also a considerable hazard for birds too?
Don’t take my tone of writing to mean that I am happy over this fact. Killing that many birds every year has to be pretty damaging for the ecosystem, at least long term if these numbers are sustained. But I just find it incredibly ironic that wind and solar, which are the Left’s most popular forms of energy production, have so many drawbacks with so few benefits.
Not that that should be in any way unexpected. Socialism itself is nothing but drawbacks and the Left is all in favor of it. But I just find it interesting, if not exactly totally unexpected, that the more we find out about things the Left loves, the more we find out just how horrible they are.
Wind and solar, apart from not being able to produce anywhere near as much energy as fossil fuels, natural gas or even nuclear can, also have their fair share of polluting of the planet and harm to the environment.
Again, none of this is really unexpected, but it is important to note when there are real examples of the sort of mess the Left wants for us. I point out the failures of socialism in Venezuela, China, etc., not because I’m in any way surprised by such failures but to point out that that’s what they lead to.
Similarly, while not really anything here regarding solar is much of a surprise to me, the part about nitrogen oxide is a bit new to me and just another arrow in my quiver. Solar energy, apart from the fact that it comes nowhere close to achieving the same amount of energy production as natural gas, is considerably harmful for the environment, which is not something that is ever going to be reported by the fake news media.
You will never hear about the amount of birds wind turbines kill each year. And keep in mind that article from Forbes was from 2013 – 6 years ago. Assuming that base 600,000 birds number to be true and consistent, over the past 6 years, 3.6 million birds have been killed due to wind turbines. And again, that’s AT MINIMUM because not all wind energy farmers publicly report bird deaths (I wonder why).
Likewise, you will never hear about the polluting damage that solar can cause because these two alternative energy sources are the go-to sources for the climate alarmist cult. They disavow nuclear because of Chernobyl (weird how they don’t disavow communism because of Chernobyl), so they fight against that source, and think natural gas is killing the planet. Yet, we see that the sources they laud as being “planet savers” are far worse options for the environment and for modern societies.
This is really just another example of how fraudulent the climate alarmist movement truly is. Taking aside the apocalyptic and pessimistic warnings they send out every single day of every single year, the very energy sources they wish to adopt would only harm people and the planet.
Again, that’s not really surprising considering the people peddling for this are the same people who support the most devastating and horrible ideology known to man: socialism.
2 Thessalonians 3:2
“And that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
With Robert Francis O’Rourke and other Democrats desperately showing just how “woke” they are by sharing their totalitarian intentions surrounding gun ownership, it is important to understand just how much of a non-issue homicide by firearm is, at least on average. Of course, every shooting and every death is a tragedy, don’t misunderstand, but rifles are far from the most common means of murder in America, despite how many there are in the country.
The FBI’s 2018 report on crime in the United States shows us clearly the number of reported murders per weapon type.
In 2018, firearms killed over 10,000 people. However, over 6,000 of those deaths came from handguns, with nearly 3,000 deaths coming from non-stated firearms, 297 from rifles and 235 from shotguns.
Keep in mind also that these numbers are completely dwarfed by the Defensive Gun Use statistics from Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, who reported that there are at least 760,000 defensive gun use cases every year. So in contrast, taking the specific number of 10,265 total firearm murders in 2018, dividing that by 760,000 DGUs (again, that is the minimum amount Kleck showed and it’s theorized most people tend not to report these types of things anyway because they don’t want to reveal they’ve used a gun to defend themselves out of legal fears), and you get 0.01%. Meaning that the total number of firearm deaths every year is 0.01% in contrast to the total number of defensive gun uses every year (minimum). In other words, guns are used for defensive purposes 99.99% of the time, at least in contrast to murders.
And take note that only 297 deaths came from the use of rifles, which includes all rifles, not just semi-automatic ones. 0.03% (rounding up) of firearm deaths came from all types of rifles in 2018.
Out of the total 14,123 murders reported in 2018, 1,515 came from knives or other cutting instruments. 443 reported deaths from blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, 672 total reported deaths from personal weapons such as hands, fists and feet, and 900 other weapons not specified.
There were far more deaths from objects like knives, hammers or even fists than there were from the ever-so-scary rifles. And these are completely overshadowed by vehicular deaths, which the NSC estimates were over 40,000 deaths related to vehicles in 2018.
And it’s not like this is all specific to 2018. The FBI’s page on 2018 deaths by weapons also includes 2014, ’15, ’16 and ‘17.
In every single year, there were far more deaths by all of the other weapons previously mentioned than by all types of rifles combined. In 2014, of only 7,803 total firearm deaths, only 235 came from rifles. In 2015, only 215 deaths came from rifles despite the fact that there were more total firearm deaths that year, at 9,103. In 2016, it ticked up a bit, with 300 rifle deaths, but still nowhere close to the total 10,372 firearm deaths that year and in 2017, there were 390 rifle deaths out of a total of 11,006 firearm deaths.
Every single year for the past 4 (recorded) years, there were far more deaths by handgun than any other type of gun, with rifles always competing with shotguns for the least amount of recorded deaths. And in every single one of those years, knives or other weapons in general were more used than rifles.
In 2014, 1,545 deaths came from knives or other bladed weapons. 431 came from blunted weapons and 668 came from personal (hands, feet, etc.) weapons. In 2015, 1,525 deaths came from bladed weapons, 436 from blunt weapons, and 647 from personal weapons.
In 2016, 1,558 deaths came from bladed weapons, 464 from blunt weapons and 664 from personal weapons. And finally, in 2017, 1,609 deaths came from bladed weapons, 472 from blunt weapons and 710 from personal weapons.
And yet, despite these numbers, rifles are the Left’s biggest target. Statistically speaking, it makes no sense. There are fare more dangerous and deadly weapons out there than rifles. But the Left’s objective isn’t to protect the people. It’s only to empower, enrich and protect themselves.
Like I’ve said in the past, the Left can only grow the government as far as the 2nd amendment will allow them. They can’t achieve the communist level of power they desire without first disarming the population. Every communist, socialist totalitarian in world history has understood their need to disarm the people. For a government to be totally unopposed, it cannot allow the risk of a revolution. The people can only be pushed so far before they rebel.
The people of Venezuela currently wish they hadn’t given up their guns to the government. An armed revolution is likely the only thing that can help the people of Venezuela to be free from the socialist regime of Nicolas Maduro.
And as I’ve said before, what is happening in Venezuela is what the American Left wants in the States, even if they don’t necessarily broadcast that to the people. The kind of power Maduro has is the kind of power the American Left salivates and strives for. This is the reason for their targeting of rifles, and it definitely wouldn’t end with just that.
So long as the people can defend themselves, the government’s ability to retain power is in some level of jeopardy. The Framers of the Constitution knew this and wrote the 2nd amendment knowing full-well what tyranny was like and what the threat of government on the God-given freedoms of mankind were.
Gun control advocacy, much like climate change alarmism, is not rooted in facts. Guns are heavily demonized when they shouldn’t be. Even taking the fact that most murders came from guns, 61% of all firearm related deaths in America came from suicide, with the rest being homicide, death by law enforcement (1.4%) or unintentional shootings (1.3%), according to the Giffords Law Center.
So the maligning that guns get is totally unjustified and the real target should be mental health and what people believe in.
Because let me tell you something: no Christian would ever even consider doing something like this – killing another person – unless it came in self-defense.
1 John 4:8
“Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross 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...