Some time ago, I wrote an article talking about how insanely hypocritical it was for Democrats and Leftists to say that they are “doing the Lord’s work” or something to that extent when opposing Trump, or simply being their Leftist selves. Well, that also applies to establishment Republicans who for some reason feel as though they can speak for God now.
In an interview with CNN, John Kasich said the following:
“You know, we have a caravan coming north. We don’t want all those people coming across our border, and there are ways to deal with it. I believe if we could check those who are legitimately in need of asylum, could be vetted before they even get to the border. But you know what? We’re born in America. You know how lucky we are to be born in America and not be born in Guatemala where they would say to your daughter, you know, if you don’t do what we want, we will rape your daughter or we will kill your son if he’s not a drug mule? Now they’re marching north, and you know what? It could easily have been all of us, that we’re in the caravan, that we’re marching north trying to save our families and save our children… If we have been spared… by the grace of God, let us be appreciative, let us count our blessings, and let us reach out to those who have less. And let’s stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight, the trouble, and the problems of others. It is not right. And the Lord doesn’t want it…”
That is a lot to cover, so let’s go little by little. Overall, I both agree and disagree with what he is saying.
People born in the U.S. SHOULD count their blessings for being born in the greatest nation on Earth. And we SHOULD try and help people who need help. In fact, doing so is very much a Christian thing to do.
However, there is a difference between helping people and being forced to take care of them.
Not to mention that the border wall isn’t meant to drive away immigrants. It’s meant to drive away ILLEGAL immigrants.
John Kasich believes that we should “help” these people. The problem comes in the fact that it’s likely dangerous people, like members of MS-13, are part of this caravan. Letting these people in means many, and I mean MANY, dangerous people seeing our compassion and exploiting it, entering the country and hurting Americans.
We should not be helping people if that comes at the expense of America and Americans. And we certainly should not be guilt-tripped into helping people who very well could come in to exploit our system at best and harm Americans at worst.
Besides, let’s not ignore that we do help people, or at least their countries of origin. We give over $120 million to Honduras alone annually (though that number is bound to come down after this). So our government does try and help other countries.
But it shouldn’t fall on us to babysit them. It shouldn’t fall on us to take these people in, particularly in this way, and sacrifice Americans’ livelihoods, jobs, etc. We have to take care of our people first, and that’s not what the Democrats and establishment Republicans seem to want.
We especially should not be made to believe that it is our fault that other countries are poorer than us. Socialism is killing Venezuela. It’s also slowly, but surely killing other countries as well. I’ve mentioned in the past that the only time Argentina was prosperous was when it abandoned socialism at least economically, through deregulation and such.
We are as rich and plentiful as we are because our capitalist system of government and economics are built to help people be prosperous. Key word “help”. It doesn’t guarantee or make it a right that people be prosperous. You have the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to given happiness.
But let’s focus a bit more on Kasich bringing God into the mix. He claims that God doesn’t want us to surround ourselves in walls. He’s wrong on this as well. You have to keep in mind what the wall is meant to do. Like I said earlier, it’s not meant to keep immigrants out. It’s meant to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out.
It’s meant to secure our border and protect our people. It’s a national security issue just as much as an immigration issue. Not to speak for God, but I believe He would want us to be safe. After all, He instructed and led Nehemiah to build a wall too. And Jerusalem currently has a wall that keeps Hamas and other Islamic terrorists out of the promised land (that was promised to the Jews, not Muslims or any other type of Gentile).
Why have those walls? To protect the people inside. That’s what Trump’s border wall is meant to do.
We are a country that welcomes immigrants. Heck, we ARE a nation of immigrants. But the difference between the immigrants that came from Europe and the ones that are marching to our border is that the world was far different, with far different laws and dangers to be met.
Not to mention that the pilgrims set out for America to be free to express their religious beliefs without fear of persecution from the Crown.
On the other hand, these illegals are fleeing their crappy countries to enter the country illegally and forcefully, very much like an invading force.
A border wall can stop such an invading force, and there is no honest person who should oppose prioritizing the safety of our people.
I won’t be too harsh on Kasich here because he is not completely wrong with what he’s saying. He’s wrong about the purpose of wanting a wall. He’s certainly wrong about what he thinks Trump’s intentions are with a wall. But he’s not wrong that we should help people.
However, that’s what we’re already doing. Allowing an invading force to enter the country like this will not help those people and certainly will not help us. If we don’t help ourselves, how could we possibly help others?
Regarding the caravan itself, I have already written an article surrounding that topic, so there’s not much else for me to say that would be too different from what I said in that article.
The larger point I wanted to make here is that Kasich is wrong in believing God doesn’t want a border wall. I won’t claim to know what God does or does not want. I cannot fully understand what God wants because I cannot fully understand Him, being one of His creations with a limited mind. However, I do believe He wants us to be safe from the dangers of this world and a border wall would help towards that end.
Not to mention that, in order to help people, they also have to help themselves. The governments of Central America, maybe with some exceptions, are largely central in their power. Meaning that government is everything and they keep expanding it, bringing in more socialism into the mix. We want to help other countries, but those countries also have to do their part in implementing a system where they are not reliant on us for so much.
I’m all for helping others. But that help should not be a one-way street. That help should not be rewarded with being invaded by illegals, likely many of whom look to exploit our system all-the-while trashing it and us, and maybe even harming people by raping young girls and/or killing them.
America and Americans must always come first. I want to help Americans first. Otherwise, how could we help anyone else?
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
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 delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have surprisingly mixed feelings about this entire thing. However, before I get into why that is, it is important to understand the context of the situation. Usually, if I see college professors slamming anything on the LEFT and not something on the Right, that comes as a massive surprise. However, you will soon understand why I am not 100% positive about this whole thing.
First, allow me to explain some context. This article comes from a different article written on Campus Reform titled: “Yale prof: Communism is a ‘religion’ with ‘sloppy theology’”. In this article, the writer explains that “panelists at Princeton University condemned communism on Tuesday (last week), likening it to a ‘religion’ with ‘extremely sloppy theology’ and honing in on its ‘inhuman’ nature.”
The article mentions the name of the panel: “Consequences of an Idea: Assessing 100 Years of Communism” and notes the name of the three panelists. First, there’s Carlos Eire, a Yale history and religious studies professor and an immigrant from Cuba. Then, there’s Sergiu Klainerman, a Princeton math professor and immigrant from Romania, a socialist country. Finally, there’s Skidmore College political science professor Flagg Taylor.
In this panel, Eire made the case that Communism is “damn close, if not exactly the same as a religion,” with “orthodoxy and heresy.”
Communism is “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence… It is also an extremely sloppy theology that does not base its observations on human behavior.”
He argued that “human beings are incapable of pure altruism, of sharing goods equally. There is never any true sharing. It is impossible.”
According to Campus Reform: “The religious studies professor noted that Christian monasticism also involved property sharing, but that monastic history is one ‘of failure, of corruption, and reform.’ He granted that it yielded some success, arguing that this was because sharing was voluntary.”
Then, Eire claims that “historically, it has been proven that communism can work, sometimes, to some extent, always with some reform. But it always requires an oligarchy of some sort.”
Campus Reform continues by writing: “The Yale professor also argued that it is only viable in small communities, noting several failed historical attempts by Christian monastics or other religious leaders to extend monastic sharing to wider communities.”
Eire insisted that “it is possible to speak of communism… as a religion” that is “governed by bad theology.”
Later in the panel, Taylor argues that it is not enough to label Communism as totalitarian, suggesting that it is better to label it as an “ideocracy” where “ideology is not just one of four or five important features” but that ideology is “the most important feature.” “In this account, a totalitarian regime becomes totalitarian precisely because it is ideological.”
Taylor argues that Communism is founded on “organized and systematic lying”, differing from “ordinary falsehood.” He argues that “ordinary falsehood” “stays in touch with the truth and knowingly distorts the truth” as opposed to an “ideological lie” which “seeks to impose a pseudo-reality upon reality. It does not depart from reality so much as [it] completely ignores reality and… it seeks to disrupt our normal access to reality.”
Taylor concludes the panel by pointing out some trends present in our daily lives that are reminiscent of communist ideocracies, such as the “hyper-bureaucratization of life”, the “persistence of perfectionism” and a “prevalent culture of activism”. He describes the latter two as a form of fanaticism that is “always certain that the enacting of a certain program will bring an end to societal dysfunction and injustice.”
This sort of fanaticism, Taylor says, “is not driven primarily by unbridled passion, but rather is the result of an intellectual error, which should recall ideologies like revolutionary socialism” and the disastrous results that they bring.
Now, this was a lot to cover, but I think it can be fairly obvious why I have some level of issue with all of this. While I do agree that Communism is basically like a religion at this point, as I have time and time again mocked the Left for their religious-like belief of climate change, it is important to understand just what kind of religion we are talking about here and why Christianity does not really belong in this sort of categorization that the professors use to define something as religious.
Carlos Eire, the Yale professor, made the argument that Communism is “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence”. And while that is true, this comes after comparing Communism with religion. Now, as a Christian, the first religion that comes to mind when someone talks about religion in general is Christianity. But this argument does not work for Christianity in and of itself.
Christianity is not “impervious to empirical evidence, scientific evidence, sociological evidence”. There is nothing in science today that goes as far as to disprove or really even challenge the existence of God. While there are people out there that use science as a weapon against Christianity and the notion of a living, eternal, self-existent God who is the Creator of the Universe, no scientific evidence really disproves God.
Even the theory of evolution does not disprove God. It basically suggests the universe started with a singular cell that evolved and got to where we are today. But it does not challenge the idea of a God because it does not answer the question “where did that cell come from?” If evolution is, indeed, how we got to this point (and I believe in some level of evolution, but within species. Meaning a species evolving to adapt better to its surroundings, not evolving into a different species altogether) then how did that first life cell come to be? What did it evolve from? Surely, not from something that was previously not alive. Not if it’s the first alive thing ever.
What I mean is this: I used to not be alive, but I was a sperm cell within my father that eventually made contact with my mother’s egg cells. There were living cells before I was alive (ironically, the Left will still somehow say that we are not alive inside the womb but are alive before we even get there as living cells). But with the first cell, what came before it? Nothing surely. But then, how did it get there in the first place?
Even if you believe the Universe was always here, as in it had no beginning (which is ludicrous), you cannot make the same argument for life on Earth. Earth was not always here. Life was not always here. So how did life get here? How did it develop from absolute nothingness? If there was ever a time when there was nothing, absent of an external force, what would there be today? Nothing!
So even the “best” tools for the Left in countering the existence of God do not actually counter the existence of God. There is no empirical, scientific, sociological evidence that points away from the Truth claims of the Bible. So in Eire’s comparison between Communism and religion, his argument does not actually work for Christianity. However, it does work magnificently well for Communism, which is meant to be the overall point. Not to mention he’s talking about religion in general and not Christianity in particular.
Now, he does also mention Christian Monasticism. For context, Monasticism is a religious way of life where one renounces worldly pursuits in order to devote oneself entirely to spiritual work. Basically, think of Catholic priests (just not the ones that molest kids or argue that there is climate change or that there should be gay priests or anything that adamantly goes against the Bible, as that basically stops being Monasticism altogether).
Eire critiques Christian Monasticism and history as being one “of failure, of corruption, and reform.”
Now, unfortunately, I am not a theologian, so I cannot necessarily argue against this completely. My understanding, at least of the Catholic Church, which tends to be Monastic, is that it has (and arguably is right now) corrupt and very different from what it should be. And I’m sorry to anyone who is Catholic here, but to say the Catholic Church is perfect is to be naïve.
The Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of the Pope. They believe the Pope is never wrong and incapable of being wrong. That, of course, is ridiculous. Of course the Pope can be wrong. He’s HUMAN! To say that the Pope cannot be wrong is to elevate the Pope to God’s level of omniscience. That is blasphemy and wholly unchristian.
The Catholic Church also believes in praying to saints, such as Saint Peter, and even to the Virgin Mary, that they may ask God to help the person praying to them. Praying to anyone but God is idolatry and there is no other way to label it. It’s not like asking someone else to pray for you. You don’t get down on your knees and bow your head to ask someone else to pray for you. Asking for the Virgin Mary to pray for you, while you yourself are in a praying position and are doing this to a statue of the Virgin Mary is to elevate the Virgin Mary to God’s level. Again, that’s blasphemy as well as idolatry.
I won’t spend too long criticizing what I don’t like about the Catholic Church, but it is important to note there are issues with it. Just as there are issues with every other denomination. There is no perfect denomination of Christianity. The church of Christ is, currently, being run by humans. Humans who make mistakes. Humans who are not omniscient. Humans who, by nature, are evil and can only be righteous by the good grace of the Lord.
So I won’t argue that there are no mistakes or issues within the denominations of Christianity or within Monasticism of Christianity. But there is a MASSIVE difference between calling Christian Monasticism a failure and corrupt and calling Christianity itself a failure and corrupt. I want to make it entirely clear, of course, that Eire is talking about Monasticism in particular. And I, not being a theologian and not having great understanding of this, will not necessarily argue against the particular claim. I just wanted to make the difference clear. He is criticizing Monasticism, not Christianity itself.
Now, I feel I should wrap this up so as to not make this article too long. In conclusion, I am glad there are college professors, particularly Ivy League college professors, who understand the horrors of Communism and its fundamental fanaticism that is devoid of knowledge and understanding.
And while Communism, and many things within Communism, can be considered to be like religion or an actual religion, where the government is God (I have mentioned multiple times that the Left wants to replace God with government. If that’s not basically making Communism a religion, I don’t know what would), I feel it particularly necessary to explain that the argument Eire used to describe religion or Communism as being like a religion does not exactly work with Christianity as science does not really suggest there is no God. In fact, it does the opposite.
Science has shown us to be extremely complex creatures living in an extremely complex reality. To say that everything that has happened up to now, including our very existence, is a matter of random chance is to reach for the bottom of the barrel in trying to deny God’s existence. The mathematical likelihood, or chance, of everything that has happened to be replicated is virtually impossible. Not only that, chance in and of itself doesn't have the power to do anything - it's just a mathematical concept to calculate probability. Chance is not a thing. When you toss a coin, you have 50/50 chance of it landing on tails - it'll depend on many factors: distance from the floor, force applied, objects it hits on its way down, etc. But chance is not a factor - it's a probability and it has no influence on the actual result. And yet, here we are. How? Well, I think we all know.
But aside from that, I want to acknowledge the fact that there are at least some college professors who still view Communism in a bad light. Of course, two of them actually had to experience communism (or at least socialism) to understand how bad it is, but still.
“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is an entirely free newsletter that contains the week’s articles compiled into a single e-mail. Unlike communists of today, I won’t lie to you and say that something is free when it really isn’t at the end of the day. When I say it’s free, that means it’s 100% free all the time. Today, tomorrow, next week, last Thursday. It’s always free to do this.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There might be some of you who wish to see me talking about the case made against Brett Kavanaugh surrounding the accusations made against him, as well as the testimony that has been given by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford this past week. However, I will refrain from making any sort of comment regarding this until after Judge Brett Kavanaugh has either been confirmed to the Supreme Court (which is what I believe will happen) or he gets denied. As it stands, I believe you know my position: I do not believe any of the (now 4) claims made against Kavanaugh as not a single one of them offers any sort of evidence or witness that can or has corroborated the claims.
So until Kavanaugh is either confirmed or denied, I won’t talk about this. But rest assured I will cover as much as absolutely possible next week, barring any more b.s. delays.
With that topic taken care of, let’s get down to the crux of this article. And don’t worry, I won’t completely leave the Kavanaugh case out of this article.
The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman, a Swedish advertisement watchdog, went after an internet service provider named Bahnhof which had used the “Distracted Boyfriend Meme” (picture above) which was used to advertise to people searching for a new job.
Allow me to give you some background information as a Millennial who uses the internet more than he goes outside. The “Distracted Boyfriend Meme”, as depicted above, features a guy holding his girlfriend’s hand, but his gaze is directed towards a woman who is seemingly more attractive than his girlfriend. All-the-while, the girlfriend looks at her boyfriend in both disbelief and disgust at the fact that he is looking at another woman with that particular face, which seems to signify some sort of approval, or as if to say “ohhh, look at dat …” Ahem. Anyway.
This meme went viral last year and was still somewhat used this year. Bahnhof, the internet service company, used this meme to signify the target audience (the distracted boyfriend) might be looking for a better job than the one they currently have (the two girls).
However, The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman claimed that the meme itself was “gender discriminatory” aka sexist. The Ombudsman said: “It portrays women as interchangeable objects, and that only their appearance is interesting. According to the committee, the objectification is reinforced by the fact that women are designated as workplace representatives while the man, as the recipient of the advertisement, is being produced as an individual.”
Now, Bahnhof argued that they only used the meme to “show that Bahnhof is an attractive employer and that those who have a slightly less good employer could be interested in us.”
The statement continues: “Everyone who follows the internet and meme culture knows how the meme is used and interpreted. [Whether someone is a] man, woman or neutral gender is often irrelevant in this context. We are an internet company and are conversant in this, as are those who would look for a job with us, so we turned to that target group. If we should be punished for anything, it’s for using an old and tired meme.”
According to the Daily Wire, Bahnhof also “reportedly shared several variations of the meme with characters of varying gender and species to show that gender was not the driving factor behind the use of the meme.”
All of this comes some time after the European Union voted in favor of implementing a new copyright directive that would basically ban internet memes in European countries because those memes could be subject to copyrights claims if not credited to the proper creator. However, given that internet memes often come up out of nowhere and often times come from t.v. shows such as SpongeBob SquarePants, it can be difficult to give proper credit to the creator, thus making this directive pretty much a ban on memes.
While hardly anything too important, it does show the kind of dangers of globalism. While the directive isn’t law yet and it needs to be applied to all countries within the Union, the fact that a globalist organization like the E.U. voted in favor of banning what is effectively a form of free speech speaks volumes about the sort of power that they have and the sort of damage they could do. Sure, banning internet memes may not be too big a deal to most people, but it shows that the EU could go farther in restricting free speech in Europe.
But that is a conversation for another time. The main focus of this article is the fact that an “advertisement watchdog” has deemed the Distracted Boyfriend Meme to be sexist when it’s nothing more than a tool for dry humor that’s not meant to cause any sort of emotional or psychological harm to anyone.
But since this is 2018 and everyone gets triggered by everything, we have a company deeming a harmless internet meme “sexist”. Now, this being a watchdog and not a government organization, they can’t really do anything about the meme or to Bahnhof. According to The Local, an English-language news organization in Sweden, “Sweden’s Advertising Ombudsman has guidelines stating that advertisements should not depict women or men as ‘mere sex objects’ or in other ways which are ‘degrading and clearly sexist’. However, the body only has the ability to make judgments on adverts, not impose sanctions.”
So, as it stands, Bahnhof likely won’t be punished for this meme. However, I would not be surprised if someone within the Swedish government were to try to do something to Bahnhof for this. The fact that we live in this day and age where just about anything can be considered sexist leads me to feel that way.
Now, I did mention earlier that the Kavanaugh case would not be entirely out of this article. Well, in the days running up to Ford’s testimony, the GOP had sought that a female attorney who is familiar with sex crimes interview Dr. Ford. Before they had done this, there was speculation from the Left that if the Republicans questioned Ford herself, it would be a “sham hearing” and a set-up. So the GOP got the aforementioned female attorney. The Left’s response? It’s “sexist”.
Yep. You can read these people like a book. I knew that regardless of what the GOP did, whether they interviewed Ford themselves or got someone else to do it, they would be disparaged and attacked by the Left and the media.
Tell me, how is it sexist to ask a female lawyer who is familiar with this sort of case to question the woman making accusations? I imagine if the GOP had hired a male lawyer with similar qualifications, the Left would have called that sexist as well because they would have “gotten a man to do this and we all know that men are pigs and rapists” or some other nonsense.
So it’s sexist if the GOP questions Ford themselves, sexist if they hired a male lawyer to question Ford and sexist if they hired a female lawyer to question Ford? What exactly were they hoping for? A gender-neutral human-dragon hybrid from the planet Krypton? Would that have sufficed the Left’s insanity?
But this is the world we currently live in. Everything anyone does, if they just so happen to disagree with the Left or even happen to use an internet meme that could somehow be considered “politically incorrect”, it is attacked and disparaged as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or any combination of all of them.
Similar to the EU’s meme ban, this is the Left’s attempt at restricting freedom of speech and alternative views. Anything that is deemed politically incorrect cannot be allowed on the internet. It must be taken down and the culprit shamed and be made an example of what happens to anyone who dares violate the rules set forth by the Left’s regime of oppression clumsily disguised as liberation.
I recently had a conversation with someone. We talked about a number of things, but primarily about the behavior the Left has been showing not just throughout the Kavanaugh case but throughout these last couple of years. We arrived at the conclusion that the next time the Left takes back power – be it the House, the Senate, the White House or any combination of the three – they would be out for blood. Not just for Trump’s blood (figuratively speaking, but I would not put it past them to try to Mussolini him throughout the D.C. streets) but for anyone who dared defy the Left at any point. We arrived at the conclusion that, if they return to power, they would make conservatives, Christians and Trump supporters everywhere pay for what we have done.
It wouldn’t be quick. We wouldn’t have concentration camps immediately, but I wouldn’t put it past them to do that sort of thing. In the Obama years, we saw a Democrat President dismiss the Constitution as irrelevant in much of what he did, a Democrat Party that backed everything he was doing, a Republican Party too scared to fight back and a Democrat base in love with anything and everything the President did.
So I wouldn’t put it past them to try and effectively destroy or render the Constitution as irrelevant or ineffective. DACA, Obamacare and many other things are already unconstitutional and not many have tried to push back against it, let alone be successful at it. With how rabid and thermonuclear the Left is, should they ever return to power, they will make all of us pay.
They already try to make the case that everything we do and stand for is racist, sexist, balloonist, unicornist etc. and they are the Party that’s OUT of power. Could you imagine a reinvigorated and powerful Democrat Party in Washington? It would effectively be the end of the United States as founded.
Earlier, I made the case that Europe’s meme ban was an infringement on people’s free speech. While largely inconsequential to most people, it does represent the sort of power the EU has. The problem Europe faces is that these people are not elected representatives. They are bureaucrats with too much power that influence too many people in Western civilization.
The advantage we have as a nation is that we elect our representatives. If we believe they are not doing a good job, we can usually kick them out. The problem comes when people don’t think that someone who is doing wrong is doing anything wrong. If the Democrats take back the House or the Senate, that is because we allowed it to happen. As such, we deserve precisely what would come after. As they say, “you get the government you deserve”.
Trump’s election didn’t drive the Left crazy – it exposed their insanity. Having unmasked themselves as the monsters they are, it has become obvious that these people cannot be allowed anywhere near Washington D.C. or any other place of power. Unfortunately, many will see differently. Too many people are either ignoring what is happening or are HAPPY with what is happening.
With Judge Kavanaugh, the Left is happy because this guy is being destroyed not because he did something wrong but because he dared be Trump’s pick for SCOTUS and dares be a threat to the Left. Schumer and others have said as much that there is no presumption of innocence with Kavanaugh. As such, they display they could not care less about the rule of law. Because without presumption of innocence, there is no rule of law. Kavanaugh is guilty just because the Left says so.
That is the sort of carte blanche power the Left believes they have and could possibly have if we are not careful. They think they're ENTITLED to this sort of power.
Regardless, that is all to be discussed next week. Right now, I wanted to point out the ridiculousness of the Left and of the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman at calling anything they don’t like “sexist” or what have you.
It goes back to that Socratic idea of logic vs. ignorance. Unfortunately, it seems the ignorant are plentiful and powerful.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that does not cost you a single penny. The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store. So make sure to check it out!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Back in August, I wrote an article that detailed the fact that only 25% of Democrats would support abolishing ICE after the illegal immigration debate heated up once again and somehow was hurting Trump to a degree.
While I do not necessarily have any news surrounding Democrats’ support of abolishing ICE, I do bring some news surrounding Latino voters’ views on ICE. And they don’t look good for Democrats.
A recently released poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo found that, of 300 interviewees who were registered Latino voters, 36% would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports abolishing ICE compared to 33% who would be more likely to vote for such a candidate.
26% said there was “no difference” either way and 5% said they were “not sure”.
Now, the poll doesn’t just focus on this one item. The poll is actually quite extensive, for example:
But perhaps most interestingly, though not necessarily shocking:
So we really should take everything in this poll with a grain of salt. This is a relatively small sample size, with only 300 registered Latino voters being surveyed.
But there are a number of things to take away from all this. Primarily, while the vast majority of Latino voters understand socialism and despise it, they do not recognize it in Democrats… somehow. Despite the fact that they do not like socialism at all, they still seemingly hold a negative view towards Trump and the GOP and would prefer the Democrats to win in November.
So what this poll tells me is that there is a severe lack of knowledge out there for Latinos. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying Latinos are stupid. Ignorance and idiocy are two different things. People can cease being ignorant simply through learning and acquiring knowledge. However, people can’t cease being stupid even with knowledge.
It’s clear to me that these Latino voters understand that Capitalism is good and Socialism is evil. They are not stupid. However, they are ignorant if they still prefer Democrats over Trump and the GOP. They do not recognize that the Democrats would only bring about the same kind of Socialism that they despise and some might even had fled from.
Regardless, that is a topic for another time. Right now, I want to focus on the fact that even within the same poll that has Latinos adamantly rejecting Trump and the GOP, Latinos also report being less likely to vote for someone who would support abolishing ICE.
It’s this sort of inconsistency that leads me to take everything this poll says with a grain of salt, even the things that are positive in my eyes. Latinos prefer Obama over Trump, the Dems over the GOP, all the while supporting Capitalism over Socialism and keeping ICE over abolishing it?
Taking aside the fact that this is a poll from an MSM source, this poll does not seem very consistent and might not be entirely credible.
However, the fact that the poll shows Latinos favoring ICE and being less likely to vote for a candidate that would support abolishing it speaks volumes, regardless of credibility.
I can understand if the poll wanted to skew certain things to make Trump and the GOP look bad and like they are about to get kicked out of Washington. I don’t know how many of the registered Latino voters are Democrats compared to Republicans. But I would be naïve to assume there is no overlap of Democrat voters in an MSM poll. However, I won’t speculate further.
All I’m saying is that it is remarkable that, despite many of the other things the poll shows, the voters would prefer ICE stay than be abolished. That goes against many other things the poll indicates and the Democrats claim. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran, among other things, on the promise of abolishing ICE. Upon her upset victory over Joe Crowley, other Democrats picked up on some of the things she was saying and moved farther Left, also calling on ICE to be abolished.
Now, as I said at the beginning of the article, support for abolishing ICE has dropped off massively since Ocasio-Cortez’s victory even within Democrats. So perhaps I should not be so surprised that Latinos tend to have a more favorable view of the agency. But that’s not what has me intrigued. Frankly, it’s not that surprising.
For the most part, registered Latino voters are legal immigrants (though I don’t know if there were any illegals who were considered “registered voters” in the poll or actually are “registered voters” as illegal as that is, but I won’t speculate further on that issue… for now). Legal immigrants tend to not have positive views on illegal immigrants.
You see, legal immigrants go through the process the right way. They (we, since I am a legal immigrant and now proud U.S. citizen) pay what needs to be paid, wait the amount of time that needs to be waited, sign and complete all the forms that need to be signed and completed, and overall go through the extensive process of attaining legal status to immigrate and become a legal U.S. resident.
Illegals basically crap all over that.
So, when legal immigrants such as myself see what illegals are doing and the preference they receive from the Democrats, we tend to not like that. Now, I do realize the poll shows Latinos prefer Democrats over the GOP, but as I insinuated, that’s relatively questionable right now.
When we see a government agency properly enforcing the immigration laws we ourselves were subjected to, we tend to like that. No one should be able to come here through illegal means and those that do should immediately be considered criminals. And don’t tell me that’s harsh. If you break the law, you’re a criminal. If you break immigration law, you’re a criminal. Simple as that.
This is a view that, from what logic and seemingly data from an MSM poll, most legal immigrants share. So what has me surprised is not that registered Latino voters seemingly marginally support ICE. What has me surprised is that the MSM poll would show that.
Either way, I would imagine the MSM would focus more on the numbers that help reflect their narrative that a blue wave is incoming and inevitable than to focus on the fact that Latinos would be less likely to support a candidate that wants ICE abolished or the fact that Latinos tend to despise Socialism and prefer Capitalism.
But regardless of what the fake news media has to say, they have given me no reason to believe what they say on multiple occasions.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It’s a compilation of the week’s articles and easy access to our online store delivered straight to your inbox. All you have to do is click on the box on the right, type in your e-mail address, click on the subscribe button and you’re good to go. No money to be paid, no data to be shared apart from your e-mail address, no hassles.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In the midst of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, the great economic news in regards to unemployment claims and rates going down, and Cory Booker tooting his own horn about supposedly being like “Spartacus” when he is not even close to that, there have been news and developments coming from Brazil.
About what? Well, last week, far-right Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who has been dubbed “Brazil’s Donald Trump”, was stabbed with a knife while he was being carried around by a crowd during one of his rallies (video below, if you can withstand the shock of seeing someone being stabbed (no blood, though)).
Bolsonaro was rushed to the hospital and underwent life-saving surgery and is currently in stable condition. The suspect (whose name I won’t share so as to not give him credit or fame over this) was arrested by police, who said he “appeared to be mentally disturbed and had claimed he was ‘on a mission from God’,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
And that’s really where we get to the meat of this article.
The suspect was “a member of the left-leaning PSOL party from 2007 to 2014. On his Facebook page, the attacker recently posted messages criticizing Bolsonaro and supporting the socialist government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.”
According to the suspect’s lawyer, “[The suspect] told me there were religious and political motivations and that he hated the prejudice that Bolsonaro openly spoke about and held against different races, religion and women.”
It’s clear that the suspect is mentally disturbed as well as very much a socialist, if he’s praising the President of a country that is out of food, water and medicine, with things likely to get even worse as time goes on.
And yet, the suspect described himself as being “on a mission from God”?
Neither his actions nor his beliefs suggest that he is someone who is Christian or believes in a benevolent Ruler of the Universe.
But this is not the first time we’ve heard a Leftist claiming to be doing God’s work or being on a mission from God. It’s not often, but we occasionally hear Leftists such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer saying that they are doing God’s work in opposing Trump.
It’s utterly asinine for a number of reasons.
First, and perhaps most importantly, what kind of narcissistic and egotistical jerks are these people to believe God needs THEM to do anything for HIM?! If God wanted Trump gone from office, He would make it so. If God did not want Trump as POTUS, He never would have allowed him to win in the first place.
Second, the Left’s actions are very openly ANTI-GOD and ANTI-CHRIST! Let’s look over some of the things the Left supports/believes in:
Beyond that, the Left constantly mocks anyone who believes in Christ, with then-candidate Barack Obama having attacked middle-American citizens as people who “get bitter… cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
So they attack and mock those who have faith in Christ and then do a 180 and claim they are siding with God in opposing Trump or Republicans? Give me a break.
These people are the very incarnation of the Exodus 20:7 verse: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”
Frankly, if God were a Trump supporter, they’d call Him a Nazi too. So for anyone to do literally the opposite of what God would want them to do, i.e. supporting abortion laws and organizations that literally profit off of death, supporting the destruction of the sanctity of marriage, supporting the destruction of the nuclear family, supporting the destruction of established scientific principles surrounding one’s gender and supporting a death cult that calls itself a religion is fundamentally stupid and wrong.
They don’t love God. Not even close. They LOATHE Him. They actively try to REPLACE Him through government.
Throughout all of history, Man has been looking to be like God, or even BE God. From Adam and Eve to Barack Obama and the entirety of the Left, to everyone in between including Nebuchadnezzar, Stalin, Pharaoh, Marx, Soros, etc. Man has always sought to be like God. In this search to be like Him, they all grew to hate Him and be envious of Him.
He has the sort of power these mere mortals would KILL to get, with some of these people actually having killed someone for power. He controls the universe and everything that happens within it. It’s the sort of power no one could even imagine, everyone would love to have, but no one can attain.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the Left HATES God. They hate Him, everything He represents and those who put their faith in Him instead of them. So whenever the Left claims they are doing God’s work or are in a mission from God, regardless of what the action is, I just have to call b.s. on that.
He would not call for anyone to support the death of the unborn. He would not call for anyone to stab a political candidate, good or bad. Those who do evil in the name of the Lord are detestable to Him.
How do I know this? IT’S IN THE BIBLE!
“They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”
And before you leave, please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike the Left who lie about their convictions and motivations, I won’t tell you a single lie, so you can trust me when I say it’s completely free. All you have to do is input your email in the allotted box on the right, click on the button right below that where it says “Subscribe to our free newsletter” and you’re done! The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy and direct access to our online store.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have already written an article detailing the fact that Venezuela is the direction the Left wants to take us, not because they are prosperous, but because those within the government have all the power they want and the people depend on them for everything.
However, given that Venezuela is still a socialist country and likely will be for the foreseeable future, the fact that they are failing to deliver the promises the Left makes simply must be covered as an example of what happens when you have actual socialism running the country.
According to HotAir.com: “In the capital of Caracas, the Central Venezuelan University hospital (long recognized as one of the leading medical centers in the region) is almost entirely out of water. And so are the rest of the residents of the city, for that matter. That means that doctors can’t scrub up for surgery or even provide a sterile environment. Surgeries are being canceled and patients can’t even be kept hydrated in some cases.”
Now, it’s not that the entire country is running out of water. Venezuela enjoys 135 days of rain a year on average. However, the reason for this lack of water is that Caracas sits at an elevation of 2740 ft. so most of their potable water comes in through pipes from lower elevated lands. The problem resides in the fact that, according to HotAir.com, “With nobody left to do the maintenance on their hydraulic systems and no money to buy replacement parts and tools, the system is falling apart.”
Combine this lack of water to perform surgery on patients or even keep them hydrated with the fact that Venezuela is also running short on medicine, vaccines and food altogether and you have a recipe for disaster.
Which brings me to the main point of this entire article: what good are socialist policies if no one can afford them and they don’t even work when they are implemented?
Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Fauxcahontas, Low IQ Maxine Waters, and more all want universal healthcare. They all want guaranteed income, even if they don’t come right out and say it, and all want the power Nicolas Maduro currently wields.
What good is universal healthcare if we can’t afford to pay for it? And even if we can somehow afford to pay for it (don’t tell me “the government pays for it, not us”. That’s the argument of a legitimate moron), what good is it if the economy is so bad that the government can’t keep it running?
What good is it to implement social programs that simply don’t work? It’s certainly not for the benefit of the people. And it’s not like this problem is strictly Venezuela’s. Our own welfare systems are designed not to help lift people out of poverty but help people REMAIN in poverty. Thankfully, under Trump, millions and millions of people are abandoning certain welfare programs because they actually have jobs now, but under a socialist President, like Obama, the main objective of such programs has been to keep people poor and dependent on the programs aka the government.
I’ve said this time and time again: capitalism creates wealth, socialism destroys it. Socialism is never for the benefit of the people. It’s a farce whenever the Left attacks the rich and claims to support the poor. It was a farce when Lenin fought the bourgeoisie for the benefit of the proletariat. It’s the proletariat, the underclass, that suffers the most and the bourgeoisie, if they align themselves with those in power, remain the bourgeoisie.
Why else do you think people like Bill Gates support Democrats? It’s not like the Democrats have good plans to make the economy stronger. All of their ideas destroy the economy. He supports them because, if Democrats are in power, they will leave him alone. It’s like that one kid who is friends with the school bully and supports him. He’s just doing it so he would be left alone and wouldn’t be victimized by him.
Another great example would most likely be Donald Trump. He used to be besties with the Clintons, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other people who now demonize him and call him a Nazi. While it could very well be said that at one point he aligned himself more socially liberal, the biggest reason he was friends with these people is so that they would allow him to build in New York, which is filled with Democrats, and in other places.
Meanwhile, the regular Joe’s like you and me, and those who are already in the poor end of the spectrum suffer the most under socialism.
Socialism has never lifted anyone out of poverty. It’s only made people poorer. You don’t hear stories of people escaping the U.S. for places like Venezuela, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc. People don’t escape capitalism. They escape socialism. You’d think these Democrats would realize that people coming here from socialist countries are ESCAPING socialism, not looking to apply it here.
But of course, it’s not about the people, when it comes to Democrats. Fundamentally, the Democrats only care about themselves. They only care about their own power, wealth and well-being.
If Bernie Sanders were a true socialist, he would donate his three homes, give up his millions of dollars and live like a socialist: in a box in the streets, being taken care of by the government. He speaks like a socialist but lives like a capitalist. That is what Democrats are doing nowadays. Ocasio-Cortez is the exact same.
At the end of the day, the Left around the world does not care if their policies are a detriment to the very people that elected them. As long as they are the ones in power, and as long as the people are dependent on the government, thus giving them more power, they are more than okay. That’s why people like Maduro sit comfortably in their homes watching their countries fall apart.
As long as the elite are left unaffected by their own destructive policies, all is well.
This is the mentality of a narcissist. The mentality of the Left.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have written about this sort of thing before, but it’s significant to see a member of the MSM (New Republic contributor Adrian Carrasquillo) contributing to this conversation and calling out the Dems for taking Hispanics for granted.
In fact, that is almost literally the title of his article: “Democrats Are Taking Latino Voters for Granted.”
In the piece, Carrasquillo begins by calling out the fact that in the Florida Senatorial race between Gov. Rick Scott and Sen. Bill Nelson, Rick Scott has taken the time to reach out to Hispanic voters by placing ads played during the World Cup and having a Spanish page on his website, while Nelson has done neither of these things or anything to match them. Carrasquillo writes: “Such decisions reveal a cavalier attitude toward Latino voters that isn’t just a problem for Nelson, whose race is unexpectedly tight, but for the party as a whole.”
Carrasquillo believes, interestingly enough, that the President’s actions toward illegal immigrants, a “botched” response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and increased deportations and separation of families at the border “should help Democrats win over Latino voters.”
Interestingly enough, here is where Carrasquillo makes some assumptions of his own. Carrasquillo’s point is that the Democrats are simply assuming that Hispanics will turn out to vote for them in elections and that that’s where they could be wrong due to their lack of outreach. However, Carrasquillo makes an assumption of his own: that Hispanic voters are supportive of illegal immigrants, don’t like the President’s efforts to deport the illegals, and don’t like the fact that “families” are separated at the border.
That is where Carrasquillo makes wrong assumptions of his own. Those of us who came to the United States legally, at least for the most part, do not appreciate illegals coming in here.
Here’s a short list of the things that we don’t like about illegal immigration:
Again, I’m not asking for preferential treatment just because I came here the right way. I’m asking that you don’t reward those WHO BREAK THE LAW! How difficult is that concept to grasp?!
The list could be longer, by mentioning illegals stealing jobs and such, but I’ll end it there.
So while Carrasquillo might believe Hispanics support illegal immigrants, the truth is that those of us who came here legally simply do not support illegals. It rightly ticks us off that they are allowed to do this and it rightly ticks us off that Democrats are actively breaking the law by setting up “sanctuary cities and states” in order to protect those who should not be here.
Carrasquillo also notes a poll of 1,000 Latino voters that found that “more than 70% were ‘very angry’ about the separation of families at the border and about Trump calling immigrants ‘animals’.”
Here’s the thing: the way media portrays things for people often has some impact on polls. For example, the firestorm that happened over separation of families at the border. I personally have said that families should not be separated (though I was not “very angry” about it). However, I now understand why that policy was put in place: there are plenty of illegals who will cross the border with a child that is not their own. There are plenty of illegals who are sex slave smugglers and get children across the border. Without such a policy, it puts more children at risk. Yes, actual families were separated, but it’s not like they were never going to see each other again (though that’s how the media was portraying it).
And about the “animal” comments, that also has to do with media portrayal. Anyone who actually listened to Trump, even outside the context of the situation, could understand that he was talking about MS-13 and others who were committing heinous crimes in America. I was not “very angry” at that because I perfectly understood what he meant, just as anyone who is not brainwashed by the Left could.
Carrasquillo then brings up other races such as California’s 39th district, where the Democrat candidate is trailing the Republican by 2 points, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won that county, as well as in Texas’ Senate race between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke, where Cruz is ahead, even with Hispanic voters.
Well, in regards to the Texas Senate race, what you have is a Democrat candidate who is of Irish descent and his real name is Robert Francis O’Rourke but is addressed as “Beto” to pander to Hispanics in Texas. Meanwhile, you have Senator Ted Cruz, who is the descendant of a Cuban man who sought political asylum in the U.S. and whose real name is Rafael Edward Cruz. In other words, Cruz is a real Hispanic candidate.
The interesting thing about Beto O’Rourke is that Hispanics don’t claim he is appropriating our culture by calling himself “Beto”. You would think some would have a problem with this, but since he’s a Democrat, I guess he gets a pass.
Finally, Carrasquillo talks about how the Democrats have the money and resources to spend on Hispanic outreach, but choose against it, and such an action, Carrasquillo believes, will be a detriment to the Democrats come November.
Personally, I don’t think not spending money on Hispanic outreach will be a detriment to the Democrats. Spending time calling Trump a racist based on no substantial evidence, inciting violence against Trump staffers and supporters, promising to raise people’s taxes if elected, promising to impeach the duly-elected president on the grounds that he “colluded” with Russia despite zero evidence to it, promising to open our borders so we can be flooded with illegals, drug cartels, gun cartels and unending crime, promising to refund Iran’s nuclear capabilities, promising to basically undo our progress with North Korea, promising to put people back on welfare and implementing regulations that will cost people their jobs, promising to force you to pay for government systems that will bankrupt the country, promising to abolish institutions that protect people from criminals (ICE, prisons, etc.) and promising to impose heavy gun control measures to the point where the 2nd Amendment is essentially null and void is what will be a detriment to the Democrats.
Here’s the reality of the situation: the Democrat Party does not stand for Making America Great Again. They stand for hatred. Hatred for Trump and those who support and elected him. Hatred for this country. Hatred for traditional values. Hatred for foundational values. Hatred for everything that is right.
What they propose, as much as they want to sugarcoat it, is the impending death of this country, not only as founded, but as it stands.
Not a single one of their proposed ideas could actually help anyone. This has been true for some time, but now, it’s even easier to call these things out. Abolishing ICE will weaken our border security and destroy the Border States.
Abolishing prison will naturally and logically raise crime. It’s basically the next best thing to legalizing crime that the Left can come up with. You can’t go to jail if jail has been abolished, so what is stopping criminals from destroying people’s lives? They would have even more incentive to be evil, knowing they will not have to pay for it.
Medicare-for-all is an enterprise that could bankrupt the country on its own. Combine that with the fact that they want to abolish profits and establish a system of guaranteed income, and you have a society drenched in utter chaos and calamity.
The Democrats don’t have anything going for themselves. They can’t promote themselves, so they have to attack their opposition. They have no good ideas, so they attack the ideas of others. The only reason they are even considered a threat to the GOP is that the media is on their side. If the media really were unbiased, the Democrat Party would cease to exist.
Had they been unbiased up to now, Obama would not have won a reelection (he still likely would have won the first time, at least). The reason for this is not that Obama faced tough competition in 2012. The reason is that he would have been impeached long before the 2012 election.
The ironic thing is that, if they had been unbiased, it’s possible that Trump would not have felt the need to run for office and another Republican candidate would be POTUS right now.
Remember, part of the reason Trump ran is because of the fake news media being heavily biased and that Obama was destroying the country. With no Obama in office long enough to damage the country, Trump would not be in office right now.
But without the media, the Democrat Party has nothing. Sure, they can brainwash useful pawns to support socialism, but it’s not going to take them very far. Most of the country isn’t socialist. And even if we were, we would quickly drop the system of government to return to capitalism.
Which brings me to another topic to discuss at another time: the soul of an American is filled with freedom. We fought to gain our independence from oppression. We can do so once again should the need arise.
It’s in our DNA to yearn for freedom. We know that we’d rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
But that’s a topic for another time. To wrap things up, it’s interesting to see a member of the MSM calling out the Dems over their lack of outreach for Hispanics. But even if they heed this guy’s advice, there’s no way in Hell I would ever vote for a Democrat.
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
For the most part, I’ve chosen to steer clear off the topic of tariffs and a trade war. However, as I would read story after story relating to a trade war with China, one thing kept coming up in my mind: China would be obliterated by a trade war.
Even if the stories I would read would suggest the exact opposite, that the U.S. should not engage in a trade war with the Chi-coms, my instinct would always tell me that China had really no hopes of winning a trade war with us, especially if our economy is booming, which it is.
I will return to why exactly I suspected China would lose a trade war momentarily. For now, I wish to share a story with you published on Breitbart News titled: “Tectonic Shift in China: Xi Under Fire as China Realizes it Underestimated U.S. Trade Resolve.”
“Chinese President Xi Jinping is facing backlash from within the Communist Party over his hardline stance in the trade dispute with the United States, Reuters reported Thursday,” according to Breitbart.
Reuters reported that: “A growing trade war with the United States is causing rifts within China’s Communist Party, with some critics saying that an overly nationalistic Chinese stance may have hardened the U.S. position, according to four sources close to the government.”
“President Xi Jinping still has a firm grip on power, but an unusual surge of criticism about economic policy and how the government has handled the trade war has revealed rare cracks in the ruling Communist Party…”
“There is a growing feeling within the Chinese government that the outlook for China has ‘become grim’, according to a government policy advisor, following the deterioration in relations between China and the United States over trade. The advisor requested anonymity.”
I’m not surprised at all that the advisor requested anonymity. If the Chinese government found out who was saying these things about China and the government, they would imprison that person and possibly even execute them. There is no freedom of speech there. The only things you can say are things favorable to the government.
Regardless, let’s continue with the Reuters report: “Those feelings are also shared by other influential voices. ‘Many economists and intellectuals are upset about China’s trade war policies,’ an academic at a Chinese policy think tank told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue. ‘The overarching view is that China’s current stance has been too hard-line and the leadership has clearly misjudged the situation.”
The significance of this report cannot be understated. If this is, indeed, the case, then this is massive news! The Chinese communists don’t tend to be split about things like this. They are usually fairly unified. So for these anonymous sources to be saying these things about the Chinese Communist Party, that’s a big deal.
Even an article from the South China Morning Post suggests that China should concede defeat to Trump in this trade war. To quote Xu Yimiao, the writer of the article: “Beijing’s strategy of a tit-for-tat retaliation over tariffs has clearly failed. In fact, this strategy escalated the conflict…”
But how can this be? I thought China was supposed to kick our butts in a trade war. That’s what the Left and the fake news media were saying, after all.
Well, it’s really no surprise that the Left would say that we would lose a trade war with China. The Left sees China as a utopia. As such, they believe China’s centralized economy is superior to a capitalist market economy. Even U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) claimed last month that China held an advantage over the U.S. in a trade war, and engaging further in this trade war would be “stupid”.
According to Breitbart, “Views such as Schatz’s were common during the Cold War, when many prominent economists and political scientists argued that the Soviet Union’s totalitarian society could prevail over the U.S. Earlier in the last century, some had made similar arguments based on the perceived strength of Nazi Germany compared to the U.S.”
Which brings me to the reason I suspected China would lose a trade war. What do China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have in common? They would use socialistic policies to run every aspect of the government and people’s lives, including the economy. And what happened to two of those nations? They are no longer around… well, not as they used to be.
The reason I suspected China would lose a trade war is because capitalism always defeats communism in economics. Communism would be considered an economic joke if it weren’t so dangerous.
You see, there’s a very clear difference between capitalism and communism/socialism. I’ve even said this before in the past: capitalism creates wealth; communism destroys it.
Capitalism is the enterprise of building more and more wealth through freedom. Communism is the enterprise of spreading wealth around so much that it’s too thinly spread, and the enterprise of making it incredibly difficult to accumulate any sort of wealth. It’s the enterprise of spending other people’s money until there is no more money to be spent.
Under capitalism, wealth belongs to the people. Under communism, the people belong to the government.
I have often talked about China and how they are ranked #2 in world GDP (#3 if you count the E.U.). But you really have to think about why they are in that place.
Well, it’s most likely a combination of having the world’s biggest population (1.379 billion since 2016), so there’s a lot of people to give money to the government, as well as exploitation of what makes the GDP grow. For example, government spending grows the GDP. Part of the reason Obama’s GDP managed to grow around 2% is because he would spend a lot of money and drive our debt sky-high. But while the GDP was “growing”, the economy was stagnating, with high unemployment levels, more people going into welfare, etc.
China is doing much the same thing. They build luxurious ghost cities that no one can afford to move into and use so that the GDP artificially grows to an extent.
Now, I won’t claim to know the intricacies of Chines economics. I doubt vast amounts of spending and having the world’s largest population are the sole reasons for that GDP ranking, but they are significant parts of it. (The other part might be that they use relatively capitalistic economic policies to avoid completely crashing the economy and sinking the country).
What I’m getting at is that no communist country can withstand any sort of economic war with a capitalistic country, by definition. Engaging in trade wars with the U.S. will only accelerate China’s ultimate demise at the hands of their own communistic system.
And this becomes even more true if the U.S. is going through an economic boom, which it is. This, I believe, is part of the reason Trump is imposing and enforcing tariffs on foreign countries. Another part of it is the fact that other countries have been taking advantage of the U.S. because the Establishment believes the U.S. became powerful and wealthy because it somehow stole from other nations and felt that foreign governments taking advantage of us was a form of justice. Trump was having none of that nonsense and decided to embark on making fair trade deals by using the same tactics as the other nations.
But this really would not be suggested for Trump to do if the economy weren’t booming. With a booming economy, we can afford to engage in trade wars to make better trade deals in the future.
A booming U.S. economy combined with the simple fact of life that communism sucks at trade wars, and you can see why I always believed China would be destroyed in a trade war.
And seemingly, people within the Chinese Communist Party are beginning to realize this.
“Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The tricky thing about deception is that, despite how carefully you construct your rhetoric, there will be times when there are cracks and someone makes a slip of the tongue. California councilman Jesse Dominguez experienced this recently.
In a Santa Barbara council meeting two weeks ago, after the city passed the measure to ban all straws, including fully semiautomatic assault straws, Councilman Jesse Dominguez responded to the question of “what’s next?” in the most Communistic way possible: “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”
And the Joseph Stalin Award goes to… Jesse Dominguez for his part in expressing what every Leftist in America thinks but won’t dare say out loud just yet.
It’s hard to get more communist than that… well, except in passing laws that lead to hundreds of millions of deaths. Since 60 million babies have already been killed because of Roe v. Wade alone, the Left in America is on good pace to keep up with the communists in the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Vietnam.
Now, for as far to the Left as California is, to the point where they’ll ban straws but legalize knowingly spreading STDs, they are still smart enough to realize that such comments are horrible, oppressive and wrong. Dominguez apologized for his remark, saying: “A few weeks ago, I made a string of words in a rhetorical fashion about regulation and they were not taken as rhetorical and that’s my fault so I want to apologize.”
He’s not sorry for what he said. No, like a typical Leftist, he blames you people for not understanding the “rhetorical” fashion in which he said the words. Despite the fact that, even if those words are rhetorical, they still mean the same exact thing. Something rhetorical is something relating to expressing a rhetoric in order to persuade or impress. A simple Google search will tell you this.
So his words mean the exact same thing, even if they are “rhetorical”. His aim is to control every aspect of people’s lives, supposedly because they lack common sense. It’s the rhetoric of every tyrant in the history of Earth.
For all the times the MSM wants to compare Trump to Stalin, which is ridiculous in itself, the real comparison exists between this councilman in particular and Stalin. In fact, knowing that Stalin was a COMMUNIST and communism resides on the Left, that comparison between Trump and Stalin is exceedingly ludicrous.
But that’s a conversation for another time. Right now, I want to focus on Joseph Stalinguez over here, and the entire Left as a whole.
This is precisely who the Left is. They want to control every aspect of your life, and this is not anything new.
I can’t help but remember a particular policy that Hillary Clinton’s idol, Margaret Sanger, the African-American community’s biggest threat, wished would be employed. In a March 27, 1934 article titled: “America Needs a Code for Babies”, Sanger said that the government should establish a sort of code “for the better distribution of babies… to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” Under this code, “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for fatherhood… No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.”
Talk about controlling every aspect of people’s lives. Sanger was calling for the very thing these pro-“choice” people are against: the government in women’s reproductive systems. Under such a code, a woman would not have the legal right to bear a child, despite the fact that that’s a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT! Under such a code, a man is not allowed to be the father of a child without the proper government documentation. A couple who wants a child would need permission from the government to have a child.
Even Stalin was not this oppressive, and this all comes from the founder of Planned Parenthood herself. But this perfectly encapsulates what the Left wants to do. Remember, Sanger WAS part of the American Left at the time. She gave speeches (or at least one speech) to the women’s chapter of a New Jersey Ku Klux Klan chapter, worked with two Nazi sympathizers in Clarence Gamble and Lothrop Stoddard in her magazine and other works, and her magazine has a piece written by Ernst Rudin titled “Eugenic Sterilization, an Urgent Need”. Rudin was the chief architect of the Nazi sterilization program and was a mentor to Joseph Mengele, a Nazi physician and research scientist.
Sanger also urged that America follow Nazi Germany’s example in the field of eugenics, saying that “in animal industry, the poor stock is not allowed to breed. In gardens, the weeds are kept down,” in a March 3rd, 1938 speech titled: “Human Conservation and Birth Control.”
Knowing all of this, tell me, does it sound like the Left of today is any different from the Left of the early-to-mid 20th century? Does it even sound all too different from the very Nazis that they want to compare Trump to?
I have said before that socialism is the same today as it was in the past. It does not change. By the same token, neither do communism, fascism and Nazism. They are all derivative of Marxism and all find a comfy home in the Left.
Returning to Dominguez, does what he said, regardless of how he meant it, sound all too different from what Sanger wanted? A central power dictating what citizens can and can’t do?
There is no other way to describe it apart from sheer tyranny, and these people think America wants what they’re selling? Maybe those who are too ignorant to understand the similarities between the Democrat Party platform and the Nazi platform and those who are successfully deceived into believing socialism is somehow a force for good, but not the majority of America.
Those who know the truth know perfectly well that the Left in America is the same as in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Venezuela.
It’s the worst idea mankind has ever come up with.
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Here’s a topic we don’t often discuss. Most of the time, we talk about what a great job Trump is doing as POTUS (50% approval rating by Rasmussen is not bad at all!), or the dangers and stupidity of socialism (still waiting on a math genius on the Left to tell me how they’re going to afford everything they want, or even one of the things they want). But the issue of feminism still lingers. And yes, it’s an issue.
What brings me to writing about this topic? The slew of all-female casts for movie reboots. From Ghostbusters to Ocean’s 11, and now, Terminator.
Last week, we were informed that a new Terminator movie is being made and set to premier in November of this year. We were informed through the franchise’s Twitter account with a promo shot of three women: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Natalia Reyes and Mackenzie Davies. This promo shot has feminists going wild for the movie not because of the stellar cast or crew (though James Cameron producing, Tim Miller directing and Linda Hamilton starring doesn’t hurt), but because the shot, and presumably most, if not all, of the movie features no men.
According to Graeme McMilan from The Hollywood Reporter: “There’s another, less obvious, reason to get excited about the movie because of this image. There are no men in the photo.”
“There were obviously men in the movies – Sarah’s son, John, is the Macguffin that gets the story going, after all, and there are both sidekicks (Hi, Kyle Reece! Hi, Old-School Terminator in T2!) and male threats – but at the center of it all, unmistakably, is Sarah Connor. She was the engine of resistance and change for the entire narrative and, for both of Cameron’s movies, the only character that really provided any emotional hook for the audience.”
“The lesson seems obvious – but it’s one that only appears to have been learned with the release of this new promotional image. When it comes to Terminator, arguably more than any other science-fiction franchise, the future is female, and always has been. The visual that audiences needed to see to have faith in any new installment isn’t the eponymous robot threat, any number of grimacing male action heroes brandishing weapons while sweating, or a callback to earlier promo posters; none of that is what makes the series special. What is, is meeting the women who are going to fight back and save tomorrow.”
Now, I have only watched the first two Terminator movies, so I can’t speak for the other ones. What I saw out of the Terminator movies isn’t merely a strong female protagonist who don’t need no man. What I saw is a strong female protagonist who (in T1) needed the help of a male soldier to protect the child she has yet to have and (in T2) being driven to near insanity by the trauma of being hunted down by a machine from the future and doing whatever it takes to protect her son, even befriending the very machine that haunted her nightmares because he’s been reprogrammed to protect her son as well.
What these two movies have in common is the fight for the protection of the most important thing in people’s lives: their children.
THAT is what made those two movies so good and special. Not the fact that Sarah Connor was strong (she wasn’t for most of T1) or that she only needed herself to do the task at hand (she needed the help of the T-1000 in T2 for the most part). It’s the fact that she would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the most important person in her life, even before that person was yet to be born.
If you want to see a film that encapsulates what it means for men and women to be equals, look no further than Terminator 2. Connor is strong because she has to be. She is stronger than a lot of the men in the film, too. But she doesn’t disrespect or belittle the men around her who are strong as well. She respects them.
Paul Bois of the Daily Wire wrote about this as well. He writes: “Though tough and certainly no-nonsense in their own right, neither Sarah Connor nor Ellen Ripley (from the Alien franchise, another one of Cameron’s movies) show disrespect to the men around them, or rather, the actual men around them. Effeminate, weak-willed men like Dr. Silverman and Lt. Gorman, they steamroll over. Righteous, heroic men like Kyle Reese and Corporal Hicks, they respect; actually, they depend on them for survival and vice-versa…”
What makes women strong is not the objective of being strong in itself. What makes women strong is their superhuman desire to protect their children. Feminists believe women must be strong in order to survive in an occupation or, for the lunatics in the feminist movement, to overthrow “the patriarchy”, and I will return to that concept momentarily.
They believe that women should really only care about their careers and not their family or children. That directly contradicts the role the Lord has established for women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t work or shouldn’t be strong at work. I’m saying there should be a clear reason for being strong: the benefit of their children.
That is the point Terminator 2, and even Terminator 1, were conveying. You do everything you possibly can to protect your children. They are not just the number one priority, they are the only priority. That’s the point that these feminists are missing.
Now, let’s return to that “overthrow the patriarchy” point, because it’s important. It details the precise point of the feminist movement. The main reason for existing. Whenever they say they only want “equality” and for women to be considered equal to men, that’s utter garbage. Why? BECAUSE WOMEN ALREADY ARE EQUAL TO MEN!
Men don’t have a single right that women do not, at least in America. Women can vote, just as men. Women can drive, just as men. Women can purchase and brandish a firearm, just as men. Women can work, just as men. There isn’t a single right that men have that women don’t (and don’t even get me started on the absolutely ridiculous notion that guns have more rights than women). The fact that men and women ARE equal is the precise problem to these feminists.
You see, they don’t want equality. If they did, they would realize we already have it. No, like the KKK who want white supremacy, the feminist movement wants female supremacy. They want women in charge and take over where they believe men have “failed”. They want women to be above men, not equals to them.
And every time a movie like this comes out and the feminist lunatics like McMilan speak in favor of the movie for that particular feature, that truth is exposed. You can’t possibly expect me to be stupid enough that I would believe you if you said “we want equality” while at the same time saying things like “down with the patriarchy!” or “the future is female”. That line of thought is illogical. Which is why it fits perfectly with the Leftist agenda.
And it’s also why I always find it ironic whenever they attack conservative women. To feminists, a woman who makes the decision of being a stay-at-home mom is dumb at best and a betrayal of their gender at worst. Despite the fact that feminists supposedly fight for the freedom to choose, they hate it whenever women make the “wrong” decision.
Oh, and by the way, that freedom to choose only really extends to abortion. If you choose to remain at home with the kids and teach them, you are berated for that choice. If you choose to be a Christian, you are berated for that choice.
Leftists are not pro-choice, they are pro-the-only-choice-to-be-made-is-what-they-want-for-you aka socialism. They don’t want you to have a choice. They want to make the choices for you. And that entire thing brings me to a different argument of how “democratic socialism” is an oxymoron as there is nothing democratic about a system of government that takes people’s things by force and gives them to other people.
Regardless, let me reiterate my point: feminism is not about equality - it’s about female supremacy and rule. Statements like “the future is female” only highlight the truth of that fact. This new Terminator movie may be good or may be bad, but the fact that it may likely have an all-female cast is not what will make it good or bad.
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...