I have often spoken to some extent or another about my own experiences having lived in socialist Argentina. I didn’t live there for too long (thank God), but I remember enough to know what it’s like to live under socialism, which is why I so adamantly and fervently speak out against the evil ideology.
Cuba is another country ravaged by communism and that is where the man I will speak about today, Maximo Alvarez, came from.
Cuba is straight-up communist and has been under a communist regime for the past 60 years. It wasn’t exactly great before, mind you, but communism has gripped the country and absolutely zero progress has been made in that country ever since, both in terms of politics and in terms of technology, etc. For crying out loud, the people still have to drive in the same cars our parents and grandparents drove back in the 1950s and 1960s!
Cuba is a communist country and the people that live in it, when they get the chance to get out, will adamantly speak against communism, having learned what it is, similarly to how people leaving Venezuela will often speak against socialism. Experience is everything, and once you experience communism, you understand how abhorrently oppressive it is.
The people clamoring for the ideology today are either people who have never actually experienced living under it, or are people who will benefit tremendously from it because they get to be the ones in total power. However, once people experience socialism/communism, their eyes are opened to the truth of how horrible it is and often times will want to do away with it, but cannot because communists disarm the populace long before they can rise up.
When the communist revolution in Cuba happened, according to Maximo Alvarez, a lot of people “swallowed the pill,” meaning that they believed each and every one of the promises made by Castro and the communists that were all lies.
But before we get to that, let me tell you some of what Alvarez shared about himself in this speech. During the round table discussion, Alvarez noted that in 1961, as a 13-year-old, Alvarez arrived to the States by himself because his parents, particularly his father, wanted a better life for him and his brother (who had been sent to Spain some time earlier than Alvarez).
In his speech, Alvarez generally spoke about how great this country is, noting that “everybody in the world wants to come over here. Nobody’s ever forced to come over here. We come over here, in my case because my parents chose that I would not be indoctrinated by the communist country, by the totalitarian country, by the totalitarian regime. They don’t educate children.”
And he is absolutely correct. Those who come here come here because they WANT to come here. People CHOOSE to come to the States because they want a better life for themselves. This is the only place in the world that can provide that for them.
And with regards to the communists indoctrinating children, that is also correct. For crying out loud, we are seeing it even here, in college campuses! Remember, young people tend to be rather patriotic until they go off to college, at which point the percentage of patriotic young people practically falls off a cliff. Our universities are not places of higher education, but rather, higher indoctrination of Marxist ideology.
At any rate, Alvarez continued, noting that Castro made plenty of promises to people, and even tried hiding the fact that he was a communist, until he actually got to power. “I remember vividly all the promises that a guy named Castro gave, and how 99% of the people swallowed the pill. It took many years later, after I read somebody named Saul Alinksy, that I realized that all those people were nothing but useful idiots.”
Alinsky, for those who don’t know, was an American communist famous for quotes such as: “Control healthcare and you control the people,” and “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”
Communism is not a logical or rational ideology. It is an evil ideology that promises paradise on earth, and in doing so, grip the hearts of plenty of people (because who wouldn’t want to live in paradise, especially if you don’t believe in Heaven?) and through emotions, uses such idiotic people to achieve its ends. The people leading such communist revolutions (and there always has to be a revolution for it to happen) are the ones who benefit, but particularly the main guy who leads the revolution.
Today, we see such useful idiots like people supporting BLM, Antifa, etc. and even the people belonging to those groups themselves. The useful idiots will destroy statues, attack people verbally and/or physically, and demand systemic change away from capitalism, which they foolishly view as evil, and towards communism, which they foolishly view as good. When the dust settles and the system is actually changed to communism, however, such useful idiots are usually the first ones to be eliminated.
Alvarez continued by pointing out that Castro fooled people into believing he wasn’t actually a communist by posing as a Catholic (does that not remind you of a certain New York governor, a certain Speaker of the House and a certain Senator from Vermont, who uses Judaism to hide his communism?) and only revealed his communism once he was in power.
“I remember Castro while in the mountains being interviewed and asked if he was a communist. He went crazy. ‘How dare you’, he says… [a] Roman Catholic. Educated by the Jesuits, he was. ‘How dare you! We even have a priest in the mountains.’”
Often times, communists hide the fact that they are communists until they feel that it’s not necessary to do so any longer.
Much of this, basically all of it, we are seeing happen in this country. The useful idiots, the empty promises of “free education”, “free healthcare”, “free land”, the communists hiding that they are communists, etc.
This is why he was so adamant about speaking out on this, because he is seeing the same thing happen here as he saw in Cuba in the 1950s and 60s.
“My God, no freedom. But [Castro] never said that until after he was in power, got rid of all the police, got rid of all the military – been there for the last 60 years and counting. And he destroyed each and every one who helped him. The Catholic church, everybody.”
One of the many interesting things he said in his speech was his description of his father, who was very smart, fled Spain when it was going through its own communist revolution, went to Cuba and could tell right away that Castro was a communist, even when he was pretending he wasn’t.
There were two aspects that stood out to me about how Maximo described his father. One was that the guy could have enjoyed the fruits of his labor, having owned golf courses, but gave it up to afford his family a better life in a better place that wouldn’t be destroyed by communism. Maximo notes that Trump is “exactly the same,” a guy who had it made, could have enjoyed the fruits of his labor, but decided to sacrifice it for something bigger than himself.
And this is an aspect a lot of people I feel do not appreciate about Trump. They will say that he is an egomaniac, selfish, narcissist, etc., but his actions do not reflect such a profile. The guy, like I said, had it made. His family was set for as long as they had money and a means to earn more of it. Generations of Trumps would have been just fine, financially, by Donald Trump not running for President and just remaining a real estate mogul, owning multiple high-end buildings, golf courses, etc. and doing whatever else he could to make more money.
He had ZERO obligation to do any of the things he has been doing for the past four years. He had no obligation at all to run for POTUS. But he chose to forsake such a life of extreme luxury that even escapes a president in order to do something for the country that he loves. He wanted to be president, not in order to gain anything, because in reality, he only stands to lose by doing so, but in order to Make America Great Again.
Choosing to run for president has all but ruined everything Trump had been building for his whole life. He is loved by many, yes, but he is also hated by many, when before, that wasn’t the case. He was loved both by Democrats, having donated to them and championed their causes (to some extent, particularly as they were not openly as radical back then as they are now) and loved by Republicans, having also donated to some of them and being the embodiment of a Republican’s dream in this country.
In choosing to become president, he has gotten roughly half the country to hate him, believing that he is a racist and all these other things that he is definitely not, and has jeopardized his family’s ability to make money by the vitriol that communists have for his very name and brand, and he, himself, only loses money by being president, not taking a salary for his work.
If there ever was anyone who did not have to be president and only stood to lose by becoming president, it’s Donald Trump, and yet, he forsook that life of luxury just to be able to save a country he loved and he viewed as worth saving. In his position, I don’t know if I would have done the same. Not to say I don’t love this country, but that is to say that I don’t know or think I would have made so many sacrifices for the mere chance of saving the country. Keep in mind, his reputation was being tarnished just by him RUNNING for office, let alone obtaining it. Had he lost, he likely would be ruined by now, and once he leaves office, the Left will most likely come after him with everything they’ve got and he will no longer have a presidential immunity to being indicted.
Maximo Alvarez loves Trump because that aspect is a lot like his father: someone willing to take great chance, at their own peril, for something bigger than themselves.
The other thing that Alvarez noted about his father that also stood out to me was something he once told to Maximo: “Don’t lose this place because you’re never going to be as lucky as me. Because if you lose this place, you have no place to go.”
That, to me, struck me as extremely Reagan-esque because those words are almost verbatim what Reagan once said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
Maximo’s father likely loved Reagan, as Maximo loves Trump. The two presidents are people who value this country for its freedoms and know that we must fight to preserve them. Granted, I think Trump mostly saw America in economic shambles and wanted to make it great again based on that, but I think Trump’s 2020 message is, or at least, it should be, about saving America not from economic turbulence but from the ideological evil that is communism.
The Left has made itself known to all about who they are. They want communism and they want it now. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Trump, I think, understands that he is a buffer for America against such communism. He stands practically all alone against communism and I think he needs to accentuate that fact in his campaigning.
Alvarez knows what it’s like to live under communism and is seeing Americans spewing the same bullcrap that communists spewed in Cuba. My own family also mentions that the things people like Bernie Sanders and other communists are promising were promises that were made to Argentinians and are promises that are still being made to them, despite the fact that socialism is the law of the land.
What we are seeing in America today is what people living in socialism and communism saw decades prior. We know what socialism and communism is and does. It’s a regressive, highly oppressive regime that destroys people’s souls, jails them for being out of line with the regime’s beliefs, and is overall a cancer on this earth. And we are seeing useful idiots on TikTok, Twitter, other social media and in real life altogether espousing beliefs they know nothing about, believing communism lifts people up when in reality, it brings people down.
America must never be allowed to fall to communism, because if it does, there is no place else on earth to go to. I just hope people realize how important our freedom is before it is taken away from us.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Either everyone has freedom of speech, or no one does. That is what I believe, and considering that there is such a thing as cancel culture in this day and age, I am of the belief that it should be used against the very people that created it. I wish to eradicate cancel culture by using it against the Left, the biggest users of it. However, there are plenty of people who simply wish to advocate for free speech (I do too, don’t misunderstand) and have signed a letter denouncing cancel culture altogether.
Harper’s Magazine issued a letter about justice and open debate. While they do not exactly hold a conservative view (they outright call Trump a “real threat to democracy” and believe censorship is a right-wing invention “spreading more widely in [Left-wing] culture”), they do hold what can be considered a truly liberal view: we have the liberty to disagree with one another.
Now, I, for one, believe that liberals have always been communists in disguise, but there are people out there who hold the CONSERVATIVE view that we should be able to disagree with one another and believe it to be a more liberal view because “liberty” is the root word for the term.
Regardless of the history of the term, how it is used, or what people believe it really means, the point remains that there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who will disagree in terms of politics but agree that we should have the freedom to disagree with one another without our entire livelihoods being upended as a result of holding a dissenting opinion (and usually, such opinions dissent from the Leftist, communist opinion).
Over 150 people signed the letter, all agreeing that we have the right to free speech and we should not be canceled for disagreement, including people like Anne Applebaum, Noam Chomsky, David Frum, Katie Herzog, J. K. Rowling, Jennifer Finney Boylan, Jesse Singal and Matthew Yglesias, to name a few.
Plenty of people with differing views on differing things, all coming to agreement that cancel culture is dangerous and that we should have the ability to speak our minds without being threatened with losing our jobs or actually losing our jobs.
Unsurprisingly, cancel culture went after these people, and it has already claimed three victims: Kerri K. Greenidge, who had originally signed the letter but eventually tweeted “I do not endorse this Harper's letter” (an absolute lie, seeing as she had signed it), an anonymous person who claimed that “she did not know who all the other signatories were” and Jennifer Finney Boylan, who also said she did not know who the other signatories were and apologized for having signed the letter.
This action, inadvertently, proves the letter’s precise point. These people, for holding a dissenting thought that we should be ALLOWED to hold a dissenting thought, were punished and threatened with their livelihoods.
And we all know that if any of them crumble, as some have, many more will follow because that is how the cancel culture works: they get one, they know what works and will use it against more and more people. And the more and more people who succumb to it, the more influential this cancel culture is. That is the ONLY reason we are in the situation we are in. Cancel culture is this prevalent because people have ALLOWED IT to be.
Whenever someone is even remotely accused of racism or holding “wrong-think”, that person is forced to apologize like they just killed the Pope. Tweets from a decade ago, comments from long ago, are resurfaced and the targets are forced to apologize. It’s so bad, people have tried to get John Wayne canceled even though he’s been dead for ages.
The minute someone expresses even a semblance of dissenting thought, they are forced to kneel before General Mob (pun intended). Even if they try to adhere to the radical Left’s “correct” and “allowed” speech codes, they can be forced to apologize for “excluding” a group of people or another. Even if you are the most hardcore Leftist today, in the span of just a few years, the things you said, even if they were “progressive” today, could be considered “dangerous” and “ignorant” and you could be forced to apologize.
No one at all is safe from cancel culture. Just this week, I saw people trying to cancel communist FRIDA KHALO for “appropriating” indigenous culture in Mexico. Even the communists of the past aren’t safe from the cancel culture. Of course, I doubt the communists who were in power, such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao Zedong, would be canceled because they brought forth the same communism that these people clamor for, but if done right, cancel culture can be used against them too.
At any rate, while I obviously do not agree with everything the letter itself said, or with everyone who signed the letter, I do agree that people should be free to speak their mind without fear of cancelation by an outraged mob that seeks the blood of the innocent.
I want cancel culture to be destroyed altogether and for liberty to prevail, but while it exists as a weapon against conservatives (the primary targets), I will use it every bit the same way the Left uses it.
As I once told someone on Twitter on this subject, no duel was ever won by the guy who refused to shoot out of “principle”. Cancel culture is an abomination and should cease to exist, but while it does exist and is used against us, I say we use these weapons against the Left.
It ain’t pretty, that’s for sure, but then again, no war is, and there is no doubt in my mind that we are in the midst of a cultural war.
“If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In this day and age, with the dominance of social media and its censorship of conservatives, not to mention poll after poll indicating a rise in popularity for socialism and communism among America’s youth, it is easy to get discouraged about the future of this country.
However, a recent poll by Young America’s Foundation (YAF) and Echelon Insights, reported by TownHall, shows a rather interesting picture about the way in which America’s youth views this country.
According to the poll, 82% of surveyors held a “very” or “somewhat” favorable opinion of the American flag, with 91% of high-school students and 73% of high school graduates saying the same. This tells us something very interesting which I will get to in a minute, though I doubt you haven’t figured it out yet.
In any case, 57% of respondents said “they believe America is ‘exceptional and unique’ and is a country that ‘values liberty.’” 54% also felt that America offers “opportunity for all who work for it,” and 46% said America is both a “good example for other countries” and that the nation “values justice”; 43% said the country “values equality.”
63% of respondents said they felt “extremely” or “very” comfortable standing for the national anthem and 58% were comfortable with reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
80% of surveyors also reported a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of war veterans, 75% favor the military, 72% the Constitution, 65% the Founding Fathers, and 57% favored the history of this country as a whole. Interestingly, 34% of respondents said they would be “extremely” or “very” willing to serve the country if we were to be attacked, 31% said they would serve if we went to war and 30% said they would serve during “peacetime.”
Now, there is a very important aspect to this poll, which takes me back to one of the figures earlier: the 91% of high school students and 73% of graduates who have a favorable opinion of the American flag. This is an indication of the sort of Marxist indoctrination that students go through post-high school, specifically in college.
The demographical makeup of the poll is as follows: 47% of respondents were male, while 53% were female. 42% of surveyors were high schoolers, or high-school aged, 13% were students working towards an associate’s degree, 31% working towards a bachelor’s degree and 7% towards a graduate degree. 21% of respondents reported being either “very” or “somewhat” conservative, 33% said they were “very” or “somewhat” progressive and 33% said they were moderate.
Perhaps the most important figure here is the number of high schoolers. A sizeable majority of the people surveyed here are still in high school, and while it’s been a long while since I have been in high school, I don’t exactly remember it as having been extremely Leftist to the point where I felt they were essentially indoctrinating me. Now, this was some time ago, as I said, and I was a bit more liberal at the time, so maybe I just didn’t really notice it too much, but I have no doubt that high schools generally indoctrinate kids less than universities do.
For example, there is this story about the daughter of a Republican Congressional candidate from Michigan who went on Twitter and outright begged for people to not vote for her father because he and she disagree on issues like socialism, communism, “systemic racism”, and other Leftist garbage. With the candidate being a conservative, I doubt he didn’t teach his daughter the right things. But whatever he may have taught her, it’s clear that the college he sent her to erased all of that and rewired her brain to be more like their desired communist puppet.
It’s no surprise at all that “college-educated” voters tend to vote Democrat, since colleges all attempt, to one extent or another, to indoctrinate kids to be against Republicans, conservatives, God and the country itself. So it really is no wonder to find such numbers in the YAF poll, considering that a sizable portion of the surveyors were still in high school. This is no knock on YAF, of course, but rather a warning of what sort of damage colleges do: they are meant to destroy any and all patriotism found within kids.
Parents tend to teach their kids to love this country, but colleges undo all of that. The ONLY reason the Left wants to make college free for anyone is so that more and more people attend and so that more and more people get indoctrinated.
People, including young generations, tend to be more patriotic when they are not subjected to mass indoctrination in colleges. Of course, government schools still try and do that, albeit to a lesser extent, but protecting oneself from the indoctrination of colleges is really the best solution, in my opinion.
Leftists might be calling to defund the police, but conservatives should be calling to defund universities (for a variety of reasons, not simply because they indoctrinate children, considering many colleges have ties to China, and that alone poses a massive national security threat for this country).
But apart from that, I am happy to see that even younger generations still typically hold conservative, patriotic beliefs. We must ensure, however, that the Left does not succeed in eroding such beliefs from our youth.
Happy Independence Day!
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Well, it took all of three weeks for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) to have an incident of police brutality.
On Monday morning, CHAZ “security”, effectively the police of the zone, shot at a white Jeep repeatedly, killing a black 16-year-old and injuring a black 14-year-old in the process, supposedly due to the Jeep having driven through one of the barricades setting up the borders of the zone.
While few news sources are noting that it was the security force that perpetrated the shooting, AND Magazine makes the claim that it was CHAZ security, and security footage from the incident shows a woman shouting “Security! [unintelligible] We’re looking for a stolen Jeep. Multiple shots fired…”
Safe to say, if the woman was shouting “Security!” chances are that she is part of the CHAZ security force, as police tend to shout something similar.
As far as the reason for firing, supposedly, the people inside the vehicle had been firing at others, but seemingly no weapons had been recovered from the vehicle and the windows appeared to have been up (though the SPD reports that the crime scene aka the vehicle itself was tampered with, so it is certainly possible the kids inside the vehicle were firing, though much other evidence would have to come forward, such as what was shot and if people got hurt).
Regardless, one can’t help but look at this incident as “police brutality” perpetrated by people living in a zone that was created BECAUSE of police brutality. Counting this, there have been four shootings and, if I remember correctly, three of them led to black people being killed inside or near the CHAZ/CHOP zone.
CHAZ was illegitimately created as a response to the unjust killing of George Floyd, and in a matter of three weeks, you have what amounts to the police force in the zone going so far as to use lethal force, killing a black 16-year-old and injuring a black 14-year-old. The 16-year-old, I can assure you, won’t have his name trending on Twitter. The Left won’t be demanding people say his name. The Left won’t post a black square on Instagram in his honor. They won’t hold 738 funerals with hundreds of people risking infection to COVID-19 for this kid.
Now, the following day, on Tuesday, Seattle police forces shut down the CHAZ, following Mayor Jenny Durkam’s order, though let’s not pretend it had anything to do with the “police brutality” of the CHAZ “security” or any of the other violent crimes that occurred there in the last three weeks.
Late last week, Durkan announced she would be closing down the CHAZ by Sunday (she didn’t) supposedly due to the rampant crime going on in the zone, but it wasn’t until protesters, including communist councilwoman Kshama Sawant, showed up at her house to protest her decision.
Seemingly, as soon as the protesters began to be a threat to her, she decided to take action against them.
The Mayor’s office even had the audacity to claim in their statement that “Seattle can and should peacefully demonstrate but should not put families and children at risk.”
The communist mayor called the CHAZ the “summer of love” and claimed that Seattle was “fine”, despite a number of people having died already and numerous families having been put at risk. Remember, not everyone who was in CHAZ was there willingly. The insurrectionists outright took over a number of blocks. Plenty of people work and live in that area and were suddenly subject to the governing authority of college-indoctrinated communists who know very well how to destroy, but not build and run things. Families and children already were put at risk just by the riots themselves, let alone the insurrection, so don’t tell me the mayor did it because a number of families with children were put at risk. Just HER OWN family was put at risk. That was the only reason she decided to act.
And while I don’t blame her for acting for this reason, and in fact commend her for acting instead of bending the knee after being personally targeted like that, don’t try and tell me she did this because she was fearing the safety of the people of Seattle. She was perfectly fine with the insurrectionists taking over a part of Seattle, the CAPITOL HILL ITSELF, so long as she and her family were left alone and were totally unaffected. She is no different from the rest of the Left’s hypocrites, such as ESPN writer Chris Palmer encouraging the riots until the rioters got a bit too close to his neighborhood and home in specific, at which point he called them “animals”, or the mayors and council people who hired private security forces while calling for the defunding of the police.
Peace and safety for them, the ruling class, but none for you, the peasant class. Only THEY get to enjoy nice, peaceful lives. If you are the victim of violence because of the riots, it’s your fault for being in the way of “peaceful protesters fighting systemic racism”. If your life and the life of your family are at risk, too bad; don’t get in the way of “progress” and “healing”.
This is the same sort of mindset of the Soviets. John F. Kennedy, just about the only half-way decent Democrat in my mind (and even that is a bit of a stretch), once said: “We cannot negotiate with people who say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.” Communists have the mindset that what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is either negotiable, or also theirs. This is the mindset that comments like Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that” comment stem from.
YOUR family doesn’t matter; theirs does. YOUR children don’t matter; theirs do. YOUR black life doesn’t matter if you stand in the way of the Left, as with the case of David Dorn and a slew of other black people and police officers who died trying to do the right thing. YOUR safety doesn’t matter if it stands in the way of the Leftist agenda.
And now, we have what is basically the police of the now-former CHAZ (in Seattle, at least, as there appears to be another CHAZ being formed in NYC, as if we needed another reason never to visit that crappy city) using violent and lethal force to take the life of a young black kid away, and injuring another one.
And don’t try and argue that they might’ve had good reason for it. You know the Left never cares about the reason a cop killed a black person. Michael Brown ASSAULTED the cop that ended up shooting him but the Left still hounded the officer, despite him having fired in self-defense. The Left gave no quarter to the officer in the Michael Brown shooting, despite it being self-defense, so what reason do I have to give quarter to the CHAZ security? The Left didn’t give Officer Wilson, the cop who killed Brown, the benefit of the doubt, so why should I give the benefit of the doubt to the CHAZ security?
Playing by the Left’s rules, the CHAZ “cops” killed a black teenager for no justifiable reason at all and should get the death penalty.
But either way, it is extremely ironic that an autonomous zone that was set up in response to police brutality (at least, that’s the official story) would feature a security force that would perpetuate police brutality.
Maybe the issue is about procedure and the circumstances surrounding an event, and not about the race of the officers and the suspect.
“If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the world of battling the outright insane religious beliefs of the climate doomsday cult, it is rare to see one who believes in climate change (at least, anthropogenic climate change, presumably) admit their wrongdoings and the dangerous nature of the climate alarmist movement that has traumatized young generations into believing the world will not even be around by the time they reach adulthood and that it is the fault of their parents and grandparents (and capitalism, because of course) that they are in such a situation. Usually, we just meet wacko after wacko pushing ever-more insane crap that has no basis in reality.
However, we do sometimes see actual climate scientists pushing back against the insane agenda of the climate doomsday cult (and suffer the consequences as a result). But even rarer than that is to see someone who used to participate in the very same climate alarmism and scare tactics recognize the error of their ways and attempt to not only atone but even apologize for it.
Which brings us to Michael Shellenberger, who wrote the following on environmentalprogress.org: “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare.”
He begins by writing: “On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”
It must have taken a lot for the guy to come to grips with just how wrong the entire doomsday cult of climate change is and to come forward and apologize for having been a part of it. He further explains that he, himself, has been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30, has worked with the UN’s IPCC, serving as an Expert Reviewer of their Assessment Report. He even succeeded in convincing the Obama administration to invest in renewables.
He is, by no means, a “climate denier” (and that term has roots in “Holocaust denier” to delegitimize any opponents to the climate cult). He even explained that at 17, he lived in Nicaragua “to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution.” The guy is very much a Leftist, but at the very least, he is honest enough and sane enough to recognize the damage the Leftist climate cult has created.
Which is why he shares the following factoids:
So the guy is very much a liberal, and yet, he is willing to go against the cult by sharing these facts that directly contradict the cult’s narrative and rhetoric. Surely, there must be a reason, particularly for doing it now as opposed to any other time.
Well, as he explains, it wasn’t until last year that he began to be openly against the climate scare. Not because he believed it until last year, or because he was fully on board with the idea, but because of a couple of factors. For one, he says that he felt “embarrassed” about doing so, seeing as he, himself, was an alarmist for most of his life. As he explains, “for years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’”
But that was only part of the reason for his avoidance of outspoken dissent. For the most part, he explains that he “was scared.” “I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”
“Gay Pride” month just ended, and I can’t help but make a noticeable connection between what Shellenberger said and what people on the Left often say about gay people: that it’s hard to come out to friends and family out of fear of rejection and consequences. That it’s hard to be gay or lesbian or whatever at work because of “persecution” or even for the potential of being fired just for that reason alone. However, the truth is that, in this day and age, it takes no courage at all to come out as gay or whatever else. Coming out as a conservative, a Christian, a Trump supporter, or even just as sane enough to not believe the climate cult’s agenda takes considerably more courage because THAT has more consequences in this day and age.
When you are a climate scientist and you offer a dissenting opinion towards the climate cult agenda, people will bash you into next week and there will outright be calls for your termination at your job. I have no doubt that Shellenberger truly was afraid of the consequences of doing what he’s doing and have no doubt that he already has, to one extent or another, suffer said consequences. I don’t know if he has suffered in terms of his job (and he wrote a book debunking the climate alarmists, which I will get to in a moment), but I have no doubt that, if nothing else, he has lost people he once considered “friends” for offering such dissent.
After all, being part of such a radical movement and then being outspokenly against it will brand you a traitor to the cause and leave you with few honest friends.
But what finally got Shellenberger to swallow said fear and come out against the insanity of the cult was a number of things. For one, there is what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said regarding what will happen in a 12 years if we “don’t do something” about climate change. Though that’s not the ONLY thing that got Shellenberger to act, of course. As he explains, “last year, things spiraled out of control.” AOC’s doomsday “prophecy” and a high-profile environmental group from Britain declaring “Climate Change Kills Children” (didn’t know Planned Parenthood changed their name to “Climate Change”) were among the many reasons Shellenberger decided to be outspoken.
But perhaps what were the biggest reasons were a poll that said that “half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct,” and another poll that said “in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.”
The fact that the climate cult is TRAUMATIZING children with crap that is absolutely not true is what got Shellenberger to write his book: “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.”
The Left is outright abusing children, filling their minds with pessimistic outlooks of a grim world that they will inherit supposedly because of their parents and grandparents and because of the economic system of capitalism. These jackals are scaring children half to death just to obtain political power.
The fact that Shellenberger has a daughter himself was also a part of it, as she has had to tackle the topic of climate change, and even though Shellenberger has taught her well with regards to the topic, her friends are still misinformed and she would likely be the only dissenting opinion in her group of friends were she to try and correct them, which would undoubtedly cause her to suffer the consequences of such dissent.
So, Shellenberger decided to write a book and was kind enough to share some highlights from it for our understanding.
For example, he writes that:
As you can see, he is still used to using Leftist terminology like “saving the environment” as opposed to simply saying “protecting” it, as that would be a bit more accurate, I’d say.
As I have stated in the past, if the Left truly cared about moving away from fossil fuels while also truly helping the environment, they would advocate for nuclear power, since that would accomplish both, but alas they are adamantly against it for a number of reasons ranging from “they are extremely stupid and misinformed” to “they don’t actually care about the environment, just the power they can obtain through abusing it as a narrative”.
In the book, aside from these factoids, Shellenberger also explains the reasons as to why the climate cult operates as it does, and honestly, it’s not for reasons one would be shocked to hear: financial, political and ideological motivations. There is money in environmentalism for those interested and the political Leftists view it as a means to achieve global communism, a system in which they and only they get to profit and thrive, trying to replace God with government.
But regardless of that, I am glad that Shellenberger has realized the error of his ways and has recognized the dangers of the climate cult. I am glad that he formally chose to apologize for having been a part of it (apology certainly accepted) and more importantly, I am glad that he chose to speak out against the climate cult (even if he won’t necessarily call them that) and wrote a book debunking their lies.
What’s more, Shellenberger offers a good bit of hope for the future. Though he recognizes that the faulty ideology of Malthusianism, which has been repeatedly debunked for a couple of centuries now, even by yours truly, is “more powerful than ever” as a result of the Left’s indoctrination of children in school, there is reason “to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.”
He says this because the Chinese coronavirus pandemic has led to the WHO and even the IPCC to lose credibility. Remember, it was the WHO that was doing the bidding of the Chinese, telling people that there was no “human-to-human” transmission even though that was proven to have been a lie from the Chinese. No one has any reason to trust the WHO anymore, and by extension, the other “scientific” institutions under the UN (or even in general).
I would say more, but this article is already rather long and I must draw it to a close. In conclusion, I would simply like to say that Shellenberger is certainly forgiven and that I hope he will not get discouraged by the Left’s tactics of destruction that will definitely come for him soon enough.
I hope and pray that Shellenberger is successful in at least convincing a good amount of people of the reality that is separate from the cult’s depiction of it.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It’s nothing new to see radical Leftists invoke the name of the Lord to defend their outright satanic beliefs. Radical Leftists often tried to use the Bible to defend the institution of slavery and to defend segregation. Radical Leftists try to use the Bible to defend the mass genocide of babies in the womb. So it’s not surprising to see a BLM communist invoke the name of the Lord to defend the destruction of the United States.
In a recent interview with Martha MacCallum, Hawk Newsome, communist leader of the Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, did exactly that in his defense of the riots.
MacCallum brought up the following quote from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and asked what Newsome thought of it: “Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout, ‘White Power!’ when nobody will shout ‘Black Power!’ but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power. Do you agree with that?”
Newsome then had the gall to say the following: “I love the Lord. And my lord and savior, Jesus Christ, is the most famous black radical revolutionary in history. He was treated just like Dr. King. He was arrested on occasion, and he was also crucified or assassinated. This is what happens to black activists, we are killed by the government.”
If he truly was a Christian, he would know not to compare Jesus with anyone, let alone “black radical revolutionaries”. Christ was NOT a black radical revolutionary.
Throughout the interview following that statement, Newsome tried to make the point repeatedly that Jesus was not white. Considering He was in the Middle East, I imagine He might not have been, but if He were white, black or whatever else, He is still the Lord and our Savior, so true Christians would still follow Him. Considering how adamant Newsome was about saying Christ wasn’t white, as though that matters, I don’t believe for one second that he would follow the Lord if He had been white.
But that just addresses the “black” part. Let’s address the “radical revolutionary” part. Jesus never set out to overthrow the government of His time and repeatedly made note of that. Jesus said in Mark 12:17: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” He didn’t call for an overthrow of Caesar (as the Pharisees believed and tried to trap Jesus into admitting as much). He didn’t call for a toppling of Rome. He made note that His Kingdom is not of this world, so He was NOT a revolutionary at all.
Next, and perhaps most importantly, Jesus was not killed by the government like a “black activist”. To insinuate Jesus was a “black activist” is a damnable insult. Jesus was killed by a BLOODTHRISTY MOB that DEMANDED His blood. Even Pontius Pilate said he found no guilt in Jesus. Luke 23:4 says: “Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no guilt in this man.’” Later on, it even says that Herod, who was the ruler in Jesus’ district of Galilee and also had the ability to judge Jesus, found no guilt in Jesus for what He was being charged with.
But the crowd insisted that Pilate would punish Jesus and would instead release Barabbas, who was, as verse 19 says: “a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder.” Similarly to the mob of today, the mob that called for the death of Jesus would rather have a horrible criminal and dangerous person be released than someone who is innocent.
Pilate further insisted on releasing Jesus but the crowd chanted: “Crucify, crucify him!” Soon after, Pilate relented and bent the knee to the mob, giving them what they wanted, and ordered the death of Jesus.
So Jesus was not killed by Rome. He was not killed by the government. He was killed BY THE MOB THAT DEMANDED HIS BLOOD BE SPILLED. He was killed because a government figure bent the knee to the mob.
That Newsome does not know this is not at all a surprise to me. HE ISN’T A CHRISTIAN! Christ is nowhere to be found in his heart, else he wouldn’t believe what he believes or say what he says!
Later in the interview, Newsome says that he wanted “black liberation and black sovereignty… by any means necessary.” Does that sound like something a Christian would say?
Blacks in the U.S. ARE ALREADY LIBERATED AND HAVE BEEN FOR A CENTURY AND A HALF! And of course, it’s hard to ignore the call for “black sovereignty”, which is, of course, black supremacy. The guy is no different or better from the neo-Nazis who call for white supremacy instead.
The guy demands black liberation when he claims to be a Christian. A Christian IS ALREADY FREE BECAUSE OF THE WORKS OF CHRIST AT THE CROSS! He wants black sovereignty or supremacy. That is not equality at all and shows us the type of person he is. Christ’s people will rule and judge the world alongside Him.
Revelation 20:4 says: “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”
There is no black sovereignty. There is no white sovereignty. There is no human sovereignty. The only sovereignty that exists is strictly the Lord’s and we all have a single path to salvation.
That Newsome believes Jesus to have been equal to a black activist destroying property, setting fires, assaulting people and killing people is outright blasphemous and I hope he repents. What he said is nothing short of an insult to the Lord and a threat to this country, which he intends to destroy to bring about black supremacy.
This man is no Christian at all, and just because he professes to have faith, that does not mean he actually possesses it. It’s clear, from this single interview, that he does not speak as one who has Christ in his heart. He has hatred – Satan – in his heart.
Christ was not a “black radical revolutionary.” He was not a black activist. He was not even killed by the government. He is the Lord. He is the King. He was killed to satisfy a mob. Newsome is part of the mob we see today, making demands and threatening destruction and unruliness if the demands are not met.
Newsome speaks more like a radical terrorist than a Christian. He should look inside his own heart and be afraid of what is in there. He should repent of the blasphemous things he said and believes. But as a radical Leftist, I don’t really expect him to do such a thing.
Who knows, though? Maybe the Lord will bring wisdom onto Newsome and get him to repent. I won’t judge Newsome because it’s not my job to do so. But what he said and currently believes is damnable and I will condemn it to Hell.
“’Not everyone who calls out to me, “Lord, Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
This is not the first time I have talked about a poll like this, but I felt it necessary, in this crazy age, to remind people that the vast majority of Americans are not the crazy commie radicals that we often see on television, movies, and the media. Most people do not actually agree with the Left on a variety of issues, but they make themselves appear to be the majority via their control of the pillars of power not only in the country but throughout the world (and I’ll get to that in a moment).
Knowing this, it doesn’t come as any surprise to me to see that a majority of Americans (55%) support either implementing restrictions on abortion or outright bans on the murderous practice, according to a recent CBS poll.
The survey of 1,309 Americans, including 454 Democrats, 331 Republicans and 524 Independents, indicated that 43% of surveyors believed abortion should be “generally available”, with 55% saying there ought to be some restrictions or an outright ban on abortion.
Specifically, 31% said that abortion should be “available but under limits,” and 24% said that it “should not be permitted” at all.
By political lines, we find that only 20% of Republicans believe abortion should be “generally available”, while 66% of Democrats and 39% of Independents said the same.
With regard to restrictions, 44% of Republicans believed some restrictions ought to be put into place, with 21% of Democrats and 31% of Independents agreeing on this. An outright ban is viewed positively by 35% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats and 27% of Independents.
Putting them together, that makes 79% of Republicans, 33% of Democrats and 58% of Independents believing that abortion should have some restrictions or be altogether banned.
Like I said earlier, this is not the first time I have talked about a poll like this because this has generally been the overall sentiment of Americans for a number of years. Back in June of 2019, I wrote about a similar poll, conducted by Harvard/Harris, which found that 46% of respondents “said the [Supreme Court] should uphold the ruling in Roe if the issue comes before the judges, while 36% said the Supreme Court should modify the 46-year-old ruling. Eighteen percent wanted the ruling to be overturned altogether.”
Like I pointed out in that particular article, that means that while 46% said the ruling (and therefore abortion law) should not be altered, 54% of surveyors said that it should be altered or done away with altogether. This is pretty close to the findings of the recent CBS poll showing that 43% of respondents said abortion should be “generally available” (aka not altered) and 55% said that it should be restricted or banned.
In other words, general sentiment surrounding abortion has not changed all that much over the past year. Most people believe it should either be restricted (with some ideas including changing Roe to allow for states to dictate whether or not abortion would be legal, as opposed to forcing all states to make it legal) or completely eliminated as a practice because it is abhorrent and legal murder.
A Marist poll from back in January also showed something similar, finding that 62% of Americans said that if the Supreme Court revisits Roe, it should either allow for states to determine what restrictions or outright bans they can put on abortion (46%) or outright make abortion illegal (16%).
Of course, one could look at that 62% and say that sentiment has gone the pro-abortion way in that time frame, but you also have to remember that last year, 54% of respondents to that aforementioned Hill poll said abortion should be restricted or made illegal. So either sentiment goes up and a bit down on it in favor of pro-life, never finding a majority believing abortion should remain the same or made less restrictive, or the polling methods are a bit odd (let’s not forget, the Left loves to oversample Democrats).
Regardless of what could be the reason for such oddities (and a good reason could simply be how the questions are worded, as that tends to affect the outcome of some polls), we still find that the majority of Americans do not favor abortion, or at least do not favor a sort of carte blanche approach to abortion that the Left would love to see. The Left would love nothing more than to see unrestricted abortion, even in the moments after birth, if Governor Coonman’s radio interview where he expressed such thoughts were any indication.
But even with this, you have to ask yourself: why does it still feel like the country is moving in the wrong direction with such things and why does it feel like I am in the minority, even though that’s not the case? Why does it feel like our culture is moving further away from God rather than towards Him, even if polls do not indicate most people agree with such cultural changes?
Which brings me back to what I talked about earlier with that comment about the “pillars of power”. You see, a culture is affected and determined primarily by those at the top. This is true in the case of communities, cities, states, entire countries and even in the realm of sports. A winning culture in a team can allow for it to be more successful (i.e. the Miami Heat, who do not really have a true superstar but have managed a good number of wins throughout the last few seasons), while a losing culture marred in mediocrity-at-best will find trouble being anything substantial (i.e just about any New York sports team, minus the Yankees).
So despite the fact that a majority of Americans do not agree with abortion, the Left definitely does and they are the ones in control of most of the pillars of power.
What are these pillars of power, you might ask? Government (including schools), news media, Hollywood/t.v./streaming, sports (entertainment in general), the corporations (I say this at the risk of sounding like Bernie, but it's true) Church (not joking) and social media.
While Trump is the President and Republicans hold the Senate, Democrats control the House and generally are good at pushing through their socialist b.s. (the Democrats only have as much power as the GOP allows them to have and the spineless GOP allows them to have plenty of it). And let’s not even pretend like all GOP members of Congress are conservatives. You have RINOs like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, etc. We used to have Jeff Flake and John McCain, as well as Paul Ryan as House Speaker. Despite not holding the presidency (and they eventually will), Leftists run D.C. and much of government. And there is no denying the regular Marxist indoctrination centers that are our public schools.
While Fox News and conservative websites exist (and Fox News is going more and more RINO at the behest of Paul Ryan), over 90% of the news is negative towards Trump. The Left holds a massive majority in the news cycle, which is why we so often call them fake news (apart from the fact that they outright spread fake news).
While there are conservative actors, they are generally far quieter because the Left controls most of Hollywood/the entertainment business. Prominent conservatives like James Woods get blacklisted and essentially cancelled and the ones who have not are either going to be at one point or do the career-smart move of staying quiet, for the most part. For example, I have a sneaking suspicion that Adam Driver, most famous for his role in the recent Star Wars trilogy as the villain Kylo Ren, is a conservative for a few reasons. For one, he laughed a lot when Ricky Gervais brought up how many in Hollywood were friends with Jeffrey Epstein (whereas most people either cringed and groaned or just remained silent). He also joined the Marines after 9/11, something few Leftists would have considered doing, and finally, he leads a mostly quiet and private life (conservatives like to be left alone, for the most part).
Also, if he is a conservative, I don’t blame him for not showing it, as such a thing can bring him persecution and lead to him losing roles and destroy not only his career but also his life (which he has to be careful about, as a husband and father).
But regardless of this, it is no secret that the Left runs Hollywood.
It also generally runs sports, as evident not only by loud voices such as LeBron James (who is loud about politics unless it has to do with China and it threatens his wallet), Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, Colin Kaepernick, the NFL itself, the NBA itself, now, ashamedly, NASCAR itself and much of the sports mainstream media.
The major corporations all bend the knee to the mob, whether it be Google firing an engineer for saying that women don't tend to want to be engineers (which is true), or corporations changing their logos to show a gay pride flag, or sending out statements "in support" of the idea that black lives matter, they do all these things because the vast majority of them are run by Leftists and they don't even try to hide it.
The current Pope is a socialist whose only redeeming quality is that he is not pro-abortion and many denominations have attempted to follow and appease Man as opposed to follow and appease God. Even the denomination I belong to, the Presbyterian church, is going Leftist (worth noting there is the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America which is even farther Left than the Roman Catholic Church and the one I belong to, the Presbyterian Church in America, is going a bit more to the Left) with many people in the Presbytery allowing a “same-sex attracted” preacher not only amongst their midst but also selling books trying to indoctrinate people into accepting homosexuality as being normal and not a sin, going contrary to the Bible.
Finally, there is social media and I hardly think I need to explain how that one is Leftist, considering how often they target and ban/censor conservatives and people with “wrongthink”.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the country is not Leftist, the pillars of power that shape our culture are mostly owned by the Left. This is why it feels like the country is going so far Left and why Democrats can run on unrestricted abortion without much worry. Even if they don’t necessarily win, they are a part of shaping our culture (Stacey Abrams lost embarrassingly but she is still a prominent politician thanks to the media and the pillars of power in general). It’s also why celebrities can attack someone for holding the basic and logical belief that a man cannot get pregnant or get a period. Even if most people disagree, they are the ones in power to shape the culture – cancelling whatever and whomever they disagree with for the sin of disagreeing with them or even not being vocal enough about Leftist causes.
It’s good to see that the majority of the country does not support abortion, or at least unrestricted abortion, but the reason we feel like we are losing is not because we are in the minority, but because the Left controls the pillars of power that affect our culture.
They must be defeated at every level.
1 John 5:4
“For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world – our faith.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I have stated multiple times in the past, what is perhaps my biggest gripe with NeverTrumpers, aside from the fact that they are NeverTrumpers, is the fact that, for years leading up to Donald Trump’s nomination and eventual election, the people that would become NeverTrumpers were supposedly staunch conservatives. They always spoke against the damage Obama was causing to the country, noted that Leftism is generally a horrible thing and that socialism would be the death of our nation.
For years, they had been clamoring for a Republican who could beat just about any Democrat and run the country very much in a conservative manner, opting for conservative policies that would bolster the economy, pick the right battles internationally while making sure we both defend ourselves and our allies without going into needless wars, speak of his or her love and reverence for the Lord and the Constitution and not ever cave to the actually insane Leftist mob no matter what.
For years, these people were hoping for the second coming of Reagan, so to speak, and yet, when we basically got that in Donald Trump, they abhorred it and even worse, began siding with THE LEFT.
And I could relatively understand their doubts before Trump was POTUS. Sure, he would say the right things about conservatism and the country, but he was not proven just quite yet. I still argued back then, as I do now, that it was far better to take a chance on someone we don’t know if they will be conservative than to allow for someone we know will be a SOCIALIST in Hillary Clinton to run the country. We didn’t know what kind of president Trump would have been back then, but just about many knew roughly what kind of president Hillary would have been, which is why I was angry with the notion of being a NeverTrumper. Those people, I felt, were betraying not only the conservative movement but the country itself.
But still, I could understand the doubt. What I refused to try and understand, however, because there really was no understanding it, was the ferocity and viciousness these same people had regarding Trump even AFTER he has proven he is the real deal. Again, for years, these people were clamoring for another Ronald Reagan – a conservative who won’t bend the knee – and when one showed up, they rejected him in favor of either Hillary Clinton (practically a cardinal sin, in my opinion) or a candidate who never had any chance of becoming POTUS like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.
I could understand the doubts before Trump was POTUS, but I simply could not understand the adamant denial of reality – the reality that Donald Trump is a conservative. Maybe he’s not the typical conservative, and definitely not the typical Republican (which is only a good thing), but he is a conservative nonetheless and his policies show that to be true. And yet, these NeverTrumpers have, for the past four years, insisted that he is a fascist and have begun to clamor instead for the approval of the fake news media which insulted, mocked and hated them just a few years before.
They abandoned their conservative principles in favor of appeasing the Left, showing themselves to have never truly been conservatives at all. Conservatives don’t bow to the mob; we don’t bend the knee; we don’t clamor for the approval of the Left. We either stand on our principles or we don’t stand at all, and these NeverTrumpers chose not to stand at all, allowing themselves to fall for the Leftist cult of insanity.
However, over some time, whether short or long, some NeverTrumpers have come around to actually being “MaybeTrumpers”, if you will. Meaning that, while they still have issues with Trump’s style (they call it his "character", which is different, but they use that word anyway to make him look worse than he is because he does not have major character flaws), they recognize that they have to take him for what he is if we are to actually be conservative and keep the Left from being in power at all. Trump has proven to be a conservative, and even if people have issues with his style and mannerisms, that shouldn’t stand in the way of at the very least voting for him, particularly knowing the extremely dangerous alternative of communism.
So when I read Daniel Pipes’ op-ed on Newsweek, I was rather happy to see this development. In his piece, “A Reluctant but Unhesitating Vote for Donald Trump”, Pipes explains that, ever since Trump ran for office on the Republican ticket, he has had issues with his style and mannerisms.
Pipes admits that he “watched in dismay as I helped the Ted Cruz presidential campaign, seeing Republican primary voters select Donald Trump out of a field of 16 viable candidates and make him president-elect. I signed an open letter committing to ‘working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted’ to the presidency and wrote many articles lambasting Trump. I left the Republican Party on his nomination and voted for Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson in the general election. After the election, I hoped for Trump’s impeachment and President Mike Pence.”
Suffice to say that he was staunchly a NeverTrumper at the time. He further explains that his reasons for it are the same as most NeverTrumpers’ back in 2016: Trump’s style and policies. Pipes had issues with what he called “unethical business practices” in Trump University (which is just a claim as Trump never had to pay any sort of punishment for such "unethical business practices", other than a settlement under questionable circumstances led by a Left-wing activist Judge after he became President), with his “egotism”, the legal troubles he has had in the past (namely the amount of them), his supposed bigotry and his vulgarity. When it came to policies, Pipes explains, he believed he was even worse, believing Trump to be impulsive and a potential neo-fascist. Trump’s 2004 statement saying he probably identifies “more as Democrat” also worried him, believing that to mean that Trump would basically be going back and forth between Republican and Democrat policies.
All things that I am not surprised a NeverTrumper of the time would be worried about. Again, for myself, I scarcely cared about his style because I was more interested in simply beating the Left no matter what.
But that’s just his style. What about his policies? The ones that Pipes believed to be either potentially neo-fascist or somewhere in between Democrat and Republican? Well, Pipes has come to the same realization any logical person ought to have after the last four years: Trump is a very good conservative president.
“[T]o my unending surprise, [Trump] has governed as a resolute conservative. His policies in the areas of education, taxes, deregulation and the environment have been bolder than Ronald Reagan’s. His judicial appointments are the best of the past century… His unprecedented assault on the administrative state proceeds apace, ignoring predictable howls from the Washington establishment. Even his foreign policy has been conservative: demanding that allies contribute their fair share, confronting China and Iran and singularly supporting Israel. Ironically, as David Harsanyi notes, a potential character flaw actually works to out advantage: ‘Trump’s obstinacy seems to have made him less susceptible to the pressures that traditionally induce GOP presidents to capitulate.’”
In other words, Trump’s stubbornness keeps him from caving to the insufferable Leftist mob that tries to rule by fear and pressure. Where other Republican presidents would bend the knee (as RINOs tend to do), Trump doubles, triples and quadruples-down, never apologizing to people who deserve no such grace.
While there are things that Pipes disagrees with Trump on policy-wise, such as Trump’s “hostility toward allies” (which they hardly can be considered allies when they make under-the-table deals with the Chinese and the Russians) and his “dangerous meetings with Kim Jong-un” (which I don’t consider to be dangerous really, since anyone sane still knows that North Korea is no friend to the U.S. and no conservative has ever even come close to forgiving the acts against God that he commits on a daily basis, but Trump is trying to weaken the power the Chinese have), he does ultimately “agree with 80 percent of Trump’s actions” which is “a higher percentage than any of his predecessors, going back to Lyndon Johnson.”
In sum, while he still finds Trump’s style to be repulsive (again, don’t really care what people think about his style and mannerisms) and while he still finds things to disagree with Trump on policy-wise, Pipes has come to understand that Trump has been solidly conservative for the most part in his presidency and that the alternative, that being Joe Biden, is the same dangerous socialist nonsense the Left has been screaming about for the past few years. Allowing Joe Biden to win would present a clear danger to this country and Trump, despite his perceived style short-comings, is a FAR better alternative to anything the Left props up as their nominee.
Pipes concludes that he “will do my small part to help Trump get re-elected by writing, giving and voting.” He also says that he will vote for Trump as “the politician who represents my conservative views” and even urges other reluctant conservatives to do the same.
The question is just how many are there? Many former NeverTrumpers had the same issues that Pipes had and came around to supporting, or at least tolerating, Trump because of his conservative policies, which are the same ones they had been wanting a president to enact for years and years before. The vast majority of NeverTrumpers today are faux-conservatives who have decided to abandon the movement in favor of appeasing the Left (not to mention they side with people who actually tried to rig an election and stage a silent coup against the duly-elected president – people who present a clear and present danger to liberty and justice itself).
That much was particularly evident when NeverTrumper and *chuckles* 2020 GOP Primary opponent to Donald Trump (I really can’t keep a straight face), Joe Walsh said that he’d “rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator.” In other words, he supports socialism now, which goes to show he never was truly a conservative, since Trump is FAR from a dictator and SOCIALISM NATURALLY LEADS TO A DICTATORSHIP AS EVIDENCED BY LITERALLY THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EVEN TO TODAY.
I do hope that people who would have once considered themselves to be NeverTrumpers realize the existential threat that the Left poses and that the idea of supporting any one of them should repel them to the core. I hope they come to reconsider their position of not supporting Trump, or at least not voting for the guy, simply due to the peril that socialism brings to this country; the type that the Left is entirely enamored by.
True conservatives, at this point, recognize the good things Trump has done policy-wise, even if they can hardly stand the guy on a personal basis. I don’t care if they wouldn’t want to have a beer with the guy, all that matters in the end is who they end up voting for.
To paraphrase a certain racist Democrat, if you are on the fence about whether you are for Trump or Biden, then you ain’t conservative.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli
The typical socialist, in trying to defend the undefendable ideology that is socialism/communism, will try to argue that capitalism is “selfish” and “bad for the people” and that, by contrast, socialism/communism is “selfless” and “good for the people”, as the people are “put first” over businesses, etc. This is an outright lie as history has shown time and time again. But in the modern era, nowhere is it more true than in the hellhole that is Venezuela, the socialist country that was suffering BEFORE the pandemic forced its already broken businesses to be locked down and its people to be out of work.
To get a good sample of what it’s like to live in a socialist hellhole like this, let’s turn to Christian Caruzo, a Venezuelan citizen who recently wrote an op-ed for Breitbart News about the current situation in the country.
Caruzo talks about how, despite (or because of) numerous and exponential increases in the country’s minimum wage (a wage which most people, if they don’t work in the dwindling private sector, are paid), most people can hardly afford to make a sandwich for themselves.
His piece is titled: “Socialist Venezuela, Where Everyone Is A Millionaire And No One Can Afford Eggs”.
He begins: “The Bolivarian Revolution has raised the minimum wage over 50 times throughout the past 20 years. As of May 2020, it’s been set at 400,000 bolivars, plus a 400,000 socialist food ticket bonus, bringing it to an astounding total of 800,000 bolivars per month.”
Sounds like a dream, doesn’t it? People being paid nearly a million bolivars every month, surely, everyone is a millionaire and must be living in paradise! Well, a simple-minded socialist might believe that this is heaven on earth, but reality is far different because of one thing: hyperinflation.
I’ve made this point before elsewhere, but I will make it again: in the Disney movie The Incredibles, a movie about a superhero family, the main villain of the story’s big plan is to give everyone access to technology that essentially emulates super powers. In his own words: “And when everyone’s super, no one will be.”
In essence, his evil plan is to make official superheroes irrelevant and nothing special, because everyone will have the ability to be super-powered and “be a hero”.
The same basic principle applies to economics: when everyone is a millionaire, no one is. And that is the current situation in Venezuela, where despite the fact that they are all paid seemingly large sums of cash at the minimum wage and everyone is usually a millionaire in their currency, it’s all practically worthless because of hyperinflation.
Something tends to have value when it is rare. It’s how demand works. If there is a ton of supply of something, such as a particular currency, then demand for that currency goes down and its value falls as well. It’s why you can’t just print ungodly amounts of money to pay for things like the Green New Deal. The more you print, the less value the dollar has.
Venezuela has been having to print more and more because of the wage “increases” they have made and hyperinflation kicks in. That 800,000 bolivar per month sounds good until you realize that that amounts to roughly $4-5 a month.
All of a sudden, the socialist dream seems more like a nightmare, because it is. Here in America, Leftists are arguing in favor of a $20 an HOUR minimum wage. They were just done arguing and passing a $15 an hour minimum wage (all of a sudden, $15 is still not enough, apparently) and not long before then, they were arguing in favor of $10 an hour.
Without going into detail about how idiotic this is and how bad it is for both businesses and employment, keep in mind that this country can afford to have such wages because of the value of our currency. Really makes you think about how blessed we are in this country to have the wealth that we do and how we shouldn’t take it for granted.
In any case, like I said, Venezuelans are usually paid $4-5 a month under minimum wage. Despite the promise of a socialist utopia where everyone is wealthy, except for the people who already were wealthy because socialism is all about revenge to these people, the reality is that everyone is DIRT POOR. And make no mistake: it’s by design.
The purpose of socialism isn’t to benefit the people, but to control them. A poor populace dependent on the government to survive is less likely to fight against the government. Despite the displeasure of the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans with the current leadership, they can’t do anything, not only because they don’t have the weaponry to stage a revolution, but because their very survival, and that of their families, is tied to the government giving them money, little as it may be.
Another factor that has contributed to the dire situation is price controls by the government. Caruzo, in his article, shared some pictures of food and the prices that they go for. In order to buy a little more than half a pound of the CHEAPEST ham and cheese he could find, he had to fork over more than 600,000 bolivars, or three-quarters of a month’s salary at minimum wage (he didn’t specify if he was on this wage, but millions of Venezuelans are and he also noted some of his own financial struggles).
In order to buy bread, he had to pay over 259,000 bolivars, bringing his total up to nearly 900,000 bolivars. In order to make himself some sandwiches, Caruzo has to pay more than an entire month’s minimum wage. JUST to make sandwiches. Never mind all the other expenses such as rent, electricity (if he has any), other food in general that he might want to eat, clothes, masks to protect himself from the virus (which has also screwed the country a lot), etc.
The cruel irony of it all is that the government considers all of these minimum wage increases to be a GOOD THING, given a propaganda poster that Caruzo shared which boasted of the number of times the regime approved minimum wage increases since the revolution, with six of them coming in just the year 2018.
Now, I am not surprised that the Venezuelan government would try and promote itself as doing no wrong and that the wage “increases” are “good”, but most of the people in Venezuela have to see all of these supposedly “good” things, all of these “good” wage “increases” and see how they and their fellow citizens and residents are living and think “something isn’t right here”.
Raising the minimum wage over and over again is irrelevant if the value of the currency goes down and people find it harder to afford things. Caruzo even noted that “Around mid-September 2019, I purchased the same type of bread… except that the price at the time was 38,800 bolivars, not 259,700 bolivars. If we go by an average exchange rate at the time it was produced, it gives you roughly $1.75. The minimum wage at the time was 40,000 - $1.80.”
In other words, while the minimum wage increased, and by a lot, between mid-September of last year and the time that it was raised again, it was entirely useless because hyperinflation brought the price of bread sky high as well. You have to pay most of your monthly salary in order to afford bread, regardless of whether the minimum wage was at 40,000 or 800,000.
I would hope that most people, even the most ardent supporters of socialism in this country (aka people who don’t know what socialism actually is) would realize why that’s a problem.
Now, a socialist might try and argue “if the government controlled the prices, then they wouldn’t go up so much and it wouldn’t be so expensive.” Except that, as I said before, the government DOES control the prices. But profits still need to be made, at least somewhat, in order for production to still exist. If the government forced pre-wage-increase prices on products in a post-wage-increase economy, the producers would lose a lot of money very quickly and would lose the incentive and ability to make such products.
Basically the only thing that would drive a revolution is a people desperate enough with seemingly as little to lose as possible. Push people far enough and they will push back. The socialist government’s plan is to make the people poor enough that they can’t fight back but not so poor that they feel they would have nothing to lose by fighting back. This is the balance socialist governments seek, which is why they can never go full-communist, lest the entire economy goes to ruin, their people revolt and their power is jeopardized.
But like I said, I would hope people would realize how bad this is and how much of a nightmare the socialist “dream” actually is. The only people that benefit in a socialist country are people in the government and the 1% (both tend to be one and the same), while the rest of the people suffer in controlled misery.
Socialism isn’t for the benefit of the people. That’s an outright lie, as history has shown time and time again. The people of socialist Venezuela have definitely not benefited under socialism. No, socialism is only ever to the detriment of the people, which is why it cannot be allowed to take hold of this country (more than it already has).
“It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Most of us, after the “war on Coronavirus” is over, will probably debate endlessly if the lockdowns imposed on the world population were needed. There are people out there who are genuinely concerned about their own well-being and that of their loved ones, who would much rather stay home for months on end, than risk going outside. No matter what science says, even told to us by the Coronavirus Task Force a few weeks back relative to how sunlight and heat exposure along with soap and detergent kill the virus, these folks are scared to death to go outside and help their immune system do its job.
But for most of us, the real concern is the people being affected by the lockdowns – suicide rates going up, no healthcare for patients that have not tested positive for Coronavirus, no income for the 33 million people who have lost their jobs or the millions who are in the process of losing their small businesses. To most of us, unless this virus was a coordinated attack against humanity, none of the lockdowns make any sense. From early on I have contended that we quarantine the sick, not the healthy. We’ve been doing this for millennia – you read about quarantining the sick in the Bible!
But rather than using common sense and tested medical procedures, we all, including our President, keep talking about the 1917 Spanish Flu pandemic, which claimed the lives of 50-100 million people world wide and compare that terrible pandemic to today’s Coronavirus. As we do this, we tend to think that the 1917 flu is the measure against which we must compare COVID-19. Up until now, I didn’t have a problem with this comparison, but that’s because I didn’t know that in 1969, when Woodstock took place, we were in the middle of a flu pandemic that was also quite significant, though not as deadly as the 1917 Spanish flu pandemic.
The 1968 flu pandemic, also known as Hong Kong Flu (way back when it wasn’t “racist” to call it that – you will still see it in Wikipedia called that way), began in Hong Kong and arrived in the US sometime in September 1968 and lasted through 1969-70. The estimated number of deaths, according to the CDC, was 1 million worldwide and 100,000 in the US. Most of those deaths were people 65 years and older.
Now, unless you’re over 60 years old chances are you have no memory or knowledge of this pandemic ever happening. And even if you’re over 60 years of age, you probably don’t remember much either. But shouldn’t you? After all, 100,000 deaths is a significant number, and considering that back then the population of the US was about 200 million with a life expectancy of 70 years old and without the problems of obesity we have today, if that number were extrapolated to today , we would be looking at about 250,000 deaths! If you lived through it, this must have been news all over the place!
Except that it probably wasn’t.
You see, there were no lockdowns, no millions upon millions of people losing their jobs or businesses, no media hysteria and Trump wasn’t the President.
Nathaniel Moir of National Interest writes:
“In 1968, the H3N2 pandemic killed more individuals in the U.S. than the combined total number of American fatalities during both the Vietnam and Korean Wars.”
So why is this Coronavirus such a big deal?
I know, I know – it’s an election year and the activists in the media and the Democrat Party want to hurt President Trump as much as they can to win the WH and the Senate back. And if hurting you, destroying your livelihood and your dreams is the path of least resistance for them, that’s what they’re going to do!
People in 1969 didn’t expect the government to run their lives, they expected physicians to take the primary responsibility to mitigate the disease. People didn’t end up in jail because they reopened their hair salons in Dallas, nor were they forced to wear masks to go to the grocery store. Government was not expected to dictate every detail of our lives – whether we can go to the beach or ride our bikes – without risking being arrested. It was assumed that doctors, not politicians, were the ones responsible for bringing medical solutions to medical problems.
Woodstock was a 3-day music festival that took place in August 1968 and attracted about 400,000 people – all while “people were dying!” of the Hong Kong flu. Today not only would you not be able to attend this concert, but you cannot even go to church!
This lockdown needs to end. It makes no sense. The SAFEST place is outside – 66% of new cases in NY are people who stayed at home! It’s not working! And it prevents “herd immunity” and prolongs the problem. It’s NOT designed to prevent coronavirus spread - it’s designed to hurt the American people if doing so hurts Trump.
We need to vote every Democrat out of office, particularly those governors who are imposing draconian measures imposed by these tyrants.
“Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”
Author: Danielle Cross
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...