The Bible is the Word of God. The Word of God is inerrant, unmalleable and eternal.
It begins with the established truth that God exists, necessarily, as Genesis 1:1 says: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” It predetermines God’s existence in a universe devoid of anything, and depicts Him as the Creator of everything. Without God, there can be nothing, as something can’t come from nothing. Ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
Us Christians understand this, at least when we put our minds to it, and trust in the Word of God as Truth. And this is not a blind trust either, as the Bible, if nothing else, is a basically reliable historical document, depicting stories and events throughout history which are backed by archaeological discoveries.
The Word of God is Truth, and seemingly, this is what psychologist Jordan Peterson has come to realize very recently.
Peterson appeared on a recent episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, in which they discussed culture, society and the Bible, with Peterson saying that the Bible serves as the bedrock of culture.
“If categories just dissolve, especially fundamental ones, the culture is dissolving, because the culture is a structure of category,” began Peterson. “That’s what it is. So and in fact, culture is a structure of category that we all share. So we see things the same way. But that’s why we can talk, I mean, not exactly the same way, because then we have nothing to talk about. But, roughly speaking, we have a bedrock of agreement. That’s the Bible, by the way. So, I just walked through the Museum of the Bible in Washington. That was very cool. It’s [a] very cool museum.”
Joe Rogan then asked Peterson: “So the structure, that’s what the Bible provides?”
To which Peterson gets into the meat of his argument and revelation:
“Yeah, that’s what I figured out. I just figured this out this week. So it was a cool, it was cool thing to walk through, because it’s, it’s chronological, they have one floor, which is the history of the Bible… it’s really what it is, is the history of the book. Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally, because at one point, there was only one book, like, as far as our western cultures concerned, there’s one book. And for a while, literally, there was only one book. And that book was the Bible. And then before it was the Bible, it was, you know, scrolls, and it was writings on papyrus.”
“And… we were starting to aggregate written texts together. And it went through all sorts of technological transformations. And then it became books that everybody could buy, the book everybody could buy, and the first one of those was the Bible, and then it became all sorts of books that everybody could buy. But all those books, in some sense, emerged out of that underlying book. And that book itself, the Bible, isn’t a book, it’s a library. It’s a collection of books.”
“And so what I figured out was, partly because I was talking to my brother in law, Jim Keller… we were talking about meaning and text, because we were talking about translation and the problem of understanding text. And Jim said, the meaning of words is coded in the relationship of the words to one another, and the postmodernist make that case that all meaning is derived from the relationship between words. That’s wrong, because, well, what about rage? That’s not words. And what about moving your hand? That’s not words. So it’s wrong, but part of it is right, because the meaning we derive from the verbal domain is encoded in the relationship between words. So now, then you think, well, let’s think about the relationship between words while some words are dependent on other words, some ideas are dependent on other ideas, the more ideas are dependent on a given idea, the more fundamental that idea is… that’s a definition of fundamental.”
Peterson then brings up the idea that, whatever texts exist in a civilization, there must be a fundamental text on which all the other texts depend, and that the Bible is said fundamental text. He brought up authors like Shakespeare, Milton and Dante for being part of the “Western canon”, as he put it, as they influenced other texts in the West. But even those books have the Bible at its base, as Peterson said.
Peterson concludes his lengthy and rather round-about explanation by saying: “And so it isn’t that the Bible is true. It’s that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth, which makes it way more true than just true. It’s a whole different kind of true, and I think this is… not only literally the case, factually, I think it can’t be any other way.”
What I believe Peterson to be arguing is that, in order for anything else to be true, the Bible must be the first and fundamental Truth.
Whatever truth other books and texts provide must first be true according to God.
For example, the truth of binary genders. There is only male and female, as Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
God never created “transgenders”, because there is no such thing as “transgender.” If you are male, you cannot become female, no matter what body deformations you put yourself through. The same is true of females. Any book which acknowledges the truth of binary genders, namely biology textbooks which haven’t been corrupted by their woke publishers, is thus speaking a truth which first relies on the Truth of Scripture.
Another example is anything pertaining to other things which are uncontestably true, such as gravity, the sky being blue, the way human or animal bodies work, cellular biology, etc. Scientists may not all have everything figured out, at least when it comes to the scientific studies of the universe, but what they do say as truth is first dependent on the Higher Truth, or Ultimate Truth.
For example, we don’t really know how black holes work, but we know they are there because God created black holes. As a result of that lack of knowledge, we can’t presently tell people whatever truth pertains to black holes apart from the fact that they exist and that they usually are formed when massive stars reach the end of their lifespans and implode, collapsing in on themselves and forming a small but massive black hole.
Funny enough, in researching this very matter, I came across an article which talks about how black holes form, and it talks about two twists regarding what we know about black holes, only one of which is really important.
It reads: “[I]t would take longer than the universe’s current age for black holes that started as dead stars to grow to galaxy-center-sized black holes. So astronomers also think the universe may have jumpstarted the process by creating giant primordial black holes in the moment just after the Big Bang – though this is just as weird and problematic as you might think.”
One doesn’t really think it’s all that weird, let alone problematic, if one understands the Truth of God.
The theory here is that black holes take longer than the universe’s current age to form into the massive black holes that we see at the center of galaxies, such as the one in the middle of the Milky Way, or the closest galaxy to us, Andromeda. As a result, the fact that such massive black holes not only currently exist but have existed for a very long time has godless scientists scratching their heads in confusion.
How can it be that they exist if black holes take longer than the age of the universe to form? Assuming that their calculations are correct, both regarding the age of the universe and how long it takes for black holes to become that big or massive, the only logical explanation is close to what the article provides, though with a different source.
God, not the universe, created giant primordial black holes after the Big Bang (or when God created the universe) to situate planets and solar systems, thus creating galaxies. Though regarding the age of the universe, God created Adam and Eve to be adults rather than mankind's usual starting age of infancy, so He could have created the universe to appear aged as well (either that, or age is an effect of sin, but that's a different discussion entirely).
Regardless, God designed and created a universe that makes sense and isn’t random (for such a universe would be contradictory to the idea of intelligent design), and made things work in particular ways. He created the Earth to be habitable, created the animals which roam it, and created man and woman to live on it.
He designed the other planets to not be habitable, as they were unnecessary for the purpose of creating life. Though, if He desired to, obviously, He could change that either gradually or immediately.
Regardless, God created the heavens and the earth, and this is knowledge we derive both from the world we inhabit and the Word of God, which directly tells us so. The Word of God is Truth, and without it, nothing else can be.
I am glad that Jordan Peterson is beginning to see the Truth of God and I hope this means that he is saved.
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving whenever she opens her mouth. She’s kind of like Hillary in that way, in as much as whatever she says is gold to me, but the sad thing is that far too many people tend to agree with her or think she’s some sort of genius, when she’s really just mumbling falsehoods and irrational thoughts.
This past weekend, she did precisely that in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
Now, there are a lot of things that can be taken from that interview. For one, Anderson Cooper, like many other journalists, asked AOC how she planned on paying for her $40 trillion Medicare-for-all project, to which she gave the same general response she always has: nothing of substance.
Another thing that can be pointed out is she also claimed, without evidence, that Fox News advocates for and defends human rights violations.
However, the biggest takeaway from that interview, and the focal point of this article, is what she had to say in response to Anderson Cooper pointing out that the Washington Post repeatedly calls her out for her false claims.
This was her response: “I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”
You know how I said the Left’s feelings don’t care about facts? Was I right or was I right?
To AOC, the facts don’t matter if she is in the “moral right”.
“Communism has killed over 100 million people? Doesn’t matter, they were still morally right.”
“Venezuela has gone from one of the richest countries in Latin America to a cesspool of poverty at the hands of a socialist government? I’m sure the government only wanted the best things for their people.”
“There is literally no way to pay for my government-expanding healthcare program and applying it would pretty much collapse our economy? Well, I care about people and we should still do it.”
It’s literal insanity. You can’t be factually wrong and morally right at the same time.
How can one claim to care about people if they want to install a program that will kill our economy?
And multiple people on social media made sure to point out how ridiculous her statement was.
“That AOC thinks there are people who are *not* concerned about being ‘precisely, factually, and semantically correct’ is the problem. Being ‘morally right’ is impossible if you’re basing it on a foundation that is inaccurate, misleading, or outright dishonest,” wrote one Twitter user.
“This is the reason socialism survives against all reason and evidence,” wrote another user, in what I think is one of the smartest takes I’ve seen regarding this. And he’s completely right too. Socialism has failed time and time again, and killed millions and impoverished millions more, but it survives as an ideology because feelings are the driving factor, not facts or intelligence.
They supposedly mean well, while wreaking havoc, pain, misery and death.
There were a lot of other people who criticized her for this, with good reason, but I wish to bring up a different argument that I haven’t seen others bring up.
While the biggest thing to focus on is the fact that she thinks facts don’t matter if she is “morally right” and that that’s a ridiculous impossibility, there is another thing to focus on: who says she is morally right?
By what measure does she believe she is morally right? And most importantly: where does morality even come from?
Ocasio-Cortez wants to install a $40 trillion Medicare-for-all plan. She has no idea how we could pay for it, often saying “well, we pay for a lot of wars” or some other mumbo-jumbo that doesn’t get close to even solving the problem.
She wants to put this plan into effect because it will supposedly make healthcare available and affordable for everyone. Taking aside how that would not work in reality, at least with the method the Left wants to use, her reasons for doing this is because she supposedly wants people to have healthcare. That may be the case, but how is it morally right to bankrupt the country in order to supposedly get there? (And we wouldn’t get there with a BANKRUPT COUNTRY!)
How is it morally right to say: “Hey, bummer you lost your job and have next to no hope of getting another one in an economy that is crashing like the Hindenburg, but at least you have healthcare! Wait, you’re telling me medical supplies are dwindling? You’re telling me people won’t be willing to do an even half-way decent job if it’s for free? Hospitals can’t afford to pay their doctors and keep running? Well, at least I wanted what was best for you.”
Clearly not if you’re adamant about putting together a plan that will destroy livelihoods.
But going even beyond that, you have to ask yourself, where does morality come from? And where does AOC’s morality come from?
Well, generally speaking, morality comes from God. In case you haven’t noticed, humans are the only beings on Earth that have some sense of morality. That’s what separates us from animals.
We all have some sort of moral compass, whether it’s functioning adequately or it’s beaten to hell.
Morality comes from God, who is the only being in existence with perfect morality. Morality cannot be separated from God.
To have the desire to do something that is not seen as moral in the eyes of God is to do something immoral. Even more so when having the audacity to say that what’s immoral is actually moral.
When it comes to Medicare-for-all, unless there is a way to fully fund it without sending the economy into freefall and making sure that there is only good things coming out of it, it is morally wrong. Why? Because FACTUALLY SPEAKING, it will absolutely wreck the economy which will only bring more pain and suffering to people. What’s morally right about inflicting pain to others even if you didn’t mean it?
It’s no different from committing sin and not wanting to have done it. Sinning is sinning, whether you intended to do it or not.
What’s even worse is sinning and saying it’s not sinning. Now, you may think that doing something that’s sinful isn’t actually sinful, but if it’s FACTUALLY sinful, then that’s sinning.
This line of argument, that it’s okay to be factually wrong if you’re morally right, is something that really annoyed me throughout the Obama years. Whenever Obama would enact something (constitutionally or unconstitutionally) that wound up hurting America, the Left would cry out “at least he’s trying!”
Well, either he was a miserable failure that should not have gotten re-elected or he was trying to destroy the country.
If he was trying to do good, then he did catastrophically poorly. The same can be said for AOC, who might be supposedly trying to do good, but will end up destroying the country whether or not she meant it.
Performing evil acts, whether or not you mean it, is still doing evil. And you cannot claim moral superiority if what you’re gunning for is not only actually impossible, but it would completely destroy not only the country, but hundreds of millions of lives.
I’m sure Hitler thought he was morally right in committing ethnic cleansing of the Jews and other races he deemed inferior. I’m sure Stalin thought he was morally right in committing heinous acts of violence against his own people.
It doesn’t matter if you think you’re doing what’s right if what you’re doing is very, very wrong. Morality doesn’t come from within. It doesn’t come from the government or society. It doesn’t come from history or anything else. It only comes from God and what He deems moral. Anything outside of that is simply immoral.
AOC isn’t morally right just because she claims to be. God is the one who judges that. And she won’t be morally right until she can recognize this and follow Him.
I won’t straight up attack her too hard because she’s young and idealistic and there is a chance she could still be saved.
I just hope and pray that she recognizes the evil of her ways and comes to receive Christ into her heart.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
It’s a good day to be alive and to make fun of some deranged Leftists, isn’t it?
Recently, the Boston Globe, a publication that has spent ages trying to support Warren’s claim to Native American heritage, released the DNA results that debunks Warren’s claim, though she thinks it’s a victory.
Allow me to explain. The DNA results show that there is “strong evidence” that Warren had a Native American family member dating back 6 to 10 generations. At the most, Warren is 1/32nd Native American, or 3.12% Native American. But at the least, she is 1/1024th Native American, or less than 0.01% Native American.
Funny enough, Elizabeth Warren and the Left believe this proves she is Native American, just as she has claimed for decades. But comparatively speaking, she is barely any more Native American than your average white person if she’s 3.12% Native American. If she is less than 0.01% Native American, she is far less Native American than your average white person and it’s not even a contest.
So the range is pretty massive, but obviously, the Left will go with the number that most favors them. There’s just one problem, however. Being 1/32nd Native American is not enough to consider her Native American. It is especially not enough to be considered part of any Native American tribe unless you have a direct descendant who is Native American, which Warren does not have.
Since 1963, the Eastern Band of the Cherokee have “required individuals to be at least 1/16 Cherokee to enroll – and also to have a ‘direct lineal ancestor’ on ‘the 1924 Baker Roll of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians”, according to a 2012 The Atlantic article.
The ancestor Warren points to having been Native American, O.C. Sarah Smith, is not on those documents. She died long before the Dawes Rolls (which apply to both the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee and the Cherokee Nation) and the Bakers Rolls were created.
Not to mention that she would also need to be at least 25% Keetoowah Cherokee to apply to that tribe.
So while she can claim to be, at most, 3.12% Native American, that is nowhere near enough to be considered part of the Native American race and certainly not enough to consider herself Cherokee. She is not part of the tribe and she never will be.
And that is just the best case scenario for Warren. Worst case scenario, she is whiter than paper. Possibly being 1/1024th Native American means being less Native American than your average white person, which certainly does not bode well for Fauxcahontas. Donald Trump might be more Native American than Warren is.
Now, there also exists another problem. The Boston Globe also mentions the following:
“To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamente (the Stanford professor who analyzed Warren’s DNA) used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south…”
Now, according to a DNA ancestry site called 23 and me, Latinos are 18% Native American, on average. But here’s the problem with substituting Native American DNA with Latino DNA. THE RESULTS CAN BE SEVERELY AFFECTED BY THAT!
All of a sudden, it is possible that Warren is 0% Native American, or at least extremely close to it, depending on the sample used. For all we know, the DNA results show that she is more Latina than Native American.
What all of this means is that, at worst (from the Left’s perspective), Warren is 0% Native American and at best, she is 3.12% Native American according to a DNA test that is at least somewhat compromised.
So in the absolute best case scenario for Warren, the test is still accurate, though with doubts, and she is still nowhere near being able to properly identify as being part of the Native American race.
But in the absolute worst case scenario for Warren, the test is flawed, she has 0% Native American DNA (or at least very close to 0%) and, again, is nowhere close to being a Native American.
So Warren is likely not even 3.12% Native American in a best case scenario if the test is compromised, which it seemingly is to an extent. This just keeps getting worse for Warren, doesn’t it?
The Boston Globe tried to explain that Bustamente’s report “explained that the use of reference populations whose genetic material has been fully sequenced was designed ‘for maximal accuracy’.”
The problem with this explanation is that it then falls on blind faith that Bustamente did a perfect job in extrapolating the DNA from Latinos to get Native American DNA.
So overall, the test is faulty, but even if it weren’t, Warren would still not be able to claim to be Native American. She can claim, at best, to have a bit more heritage than your average white person, but at worst, she has considerably less heritage than your average white person.
Matter of fact, being a Latino, I am more likely to be considered Native American than Warren is. While I know that most of my family comes from Europe, either from Italy or Spain, I do not know my entire heritage. Who knows? Maybe I am part Native Argentinian. Not that that’s a thing that people honestly care about because race is not one of the biggest things to worry about in Argentina. Most people worry about the crappy economy that socialist after socialist keeps further ruining because they are morons.
Not that any of this will matter to Warren. If the test can come back to say that she’s even 0.00000001% Native American, she will consider this a success. Even though the vast majority of people in America have considerable Native American heritage, Warren will somehow feel as though she is special and was right.
The only thing that is special about her is how especially funny she is thinking she’s Native American.
Again, she does not consider this a failure whatsoever. The fact that she has very minimal Native American heritage is enough for her to consider herself Native and even Cherokee. That’s just how backwards she is. “No” means “yes”, “barely Native American and definitely not enough to consider yourself Cherokee” means “I am Chief Flowing River from now on.”
But the evidence provided by the faulty DNA analysis, at best, shows that she is a white woman. Just as everyone else with functioning eyes and a functioning brain can tell.
Correction: As it turns out, Warren is likely not even 1/32nd Native American. As it turns out, the Boston Globe made a math error (two actually, the first one being 1/512nd instead of 1/1024) and she is only 1/64th Native American at most, which means 1.56% Native American. Things just keep getting worse for her, aren't they?
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Unlike Fauxcahontas who lies about being Native American, I won’t lie to you about the cost of subscribing to our newsletter. When I say it’s free, you can take that to the bank. Except you can’t because it’s $0 and the teller will tell you to get out. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Since the Brett Kavanaugh story has been the most talked-about story in the past few weeks, it makes sense for me to still be talking about it. However, rather than focusing on the story in and of itself, I will focus on what this story is doing to American people who follow the MSM and believe everything they say.
What the Left is doing here, as will be shown by the following story, is creating mind-numbed robots programmed to believe certain things and answer in certain ways when challenged. This tends to be prominent in climate change debates, abortion, etc. But with the Brett Kavanaugh case, the effects of the Left are in full display.
Allow me to elaborate and give you context. Recently, many anti-Kavanaugh protests have been held in Republican offices, with stories of vandalism and unruliness. However, while that comes as part of the overall idea of the Left creating mind-numbed robots, I will not be focusing on those particular stories. I will focus on one particular story about a Republican Congressman, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) actually pushing back against the claims and accusations of a female anti-Kavanaugh protester.
The video (below) begins with the protester asking Cassidy: “Why are you supporting Kavanaugh?” Cassidy simply replied with: “Why wouldn’t I support Kavanaugh?”
The protester then said: “Because rapists are bad.”
Now, personally, I could go on and on about this woman’s likely hypocrisy if she supports Bill Clinton and even going as far as to point out that, to the Left, Kavanaugh is guilty of a horrific crime just because a woman said so. The key word here is “woman” because they make it a point to say that all women must be believed, regardless of the evidence presented (or lack thereof)… except for Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Karen Monahan or anyone else who accuses Democrats of anything.
But I will not focus on that, at least quite yet.
To continue, Cassidy then said: “Wait a second – everybody there said that it did not happen. So why am I going to-“ before being cut-off by the protester who said: “So you’re going to believe Mark Judge over a woman?”
Again, I could point out the fact that the only thing that matters is the gender of the accuser and that just because she’s a woman, she immediately is credible. A sexist belief, no matter what way you slice it.
Still, Cassidy responded by saying: “No, I’m going to believe her best friend.” To which the protester said: “Her best friend didn’t say it didn’t happen. Her best friend said she wasn’t told about it.”
Cassidy replied: “She said she didn’t remember.”
Then, we get into the meat of the conversation. The protester hilariously and baselessly said to Cassidy: “So you’re ok as a doctor to harm a woman?”
First, I don’t know how you take “Ford’s best friend said she didn’t remember” and assume that to mean “I’m okay with women getting hurt.” You have to have some missing brain cells to try and make such a connection there. There is no connection whatsoever.
Second, that really displays the sort of damage the Left is making. They are actually dumbing people down if that is her response.
But Cassidy’s reply is the absolute best: “Wait a second – are you ok as a person to go ahead and to accept a non-corroborated charge to destroy someone’s life? If it destroyed your life, your son’s life, or your husband’s? Wait a second, answer my question. If it was your husband, your son, your father, whose life has been destroyed by uncorroborated, would you like that?”
A fantastic question that no honest liberal can answer. They always ask: “what if it was your daughter or sister or mother who was up there claiming a person assaulted her?” They never ask: “what if it was your son or brother or mother who was up there being accused of something the accusers cannot prove they did and get utterly destroyed by it?” We can answer their question. They can’t answer ours because this is a matter of fairness and they have to know on a fundamental level, even if they don’t say it outright, that the treatment of Kavanaugh is wholly unfair. The protester’s subsequent answer highlights that she cannot answer the question because she fundamentally believes this is unfair but doesn’t want to give Kavanaugh a break.
The protester, in her mind-numbed robot manner, replied: “I would support a full FBI investigation.”
That doesn’t even begin to answer the Senator’s question. It’s not a matter of whether she would approve an FBI investigation. It’s a matter of whether she would be okay with a male member of her family being utterly destroyed over something he did not do and has not been proven to have done.
But Cassidy tried to get her to answer the question he provided and even pointed out that she could not answer the question because she knows it’s unfair. These are the answers, in order, that she gave to the same question of whether she would like for this to happen to a male member of her family who was innocent: “I wouldn’t marry somebody that was a drunk”, “I would stand up”, “I would fight. And I would make sure women are heard. Clearly you’re ok if a rapist goes on the Supreme Court.”
I will get to the answers momentarily. For now, I will share Cassidy’s final reply because it is absolutely terrific: “No, I’m not. But then, on the other hand, clearly you’re ok, the absence of evidence obviously means nothing to you.”
To which the protester replied, hilariously: “No, there is evidence. Look at the standard. How many people are in jail for less?”
Again, you have to be a special kind of person to believe “look at the standard” and “people are jailed for less” to be evidence for this specific case. It’s honestly a stupid argument, and even then, calling that an argument would be to give it too much credit. It’s not an argument; it’s stupidity in verbal form.
But as I promised, let’s look at the answers she gave to the question Cassidy proposed: “I wouldn’t marry somebody that was a drunk”. First, that also doesn’t answer the question. Second, that’s fine, but what about a son, father or brother? What do you do with them if they are in this position? Not be the mother of a drunk? Not be the daughter of a drunk? Not be the sister of a drunk? This answer is entirely flawed even despite the fact that it’s not an answer to Cassidy’s question.
“I would stand up.” To whom? And for whom? Would she really stand up with a woman who would not and cannot corroborate her claims of sexual assault being directed at someone in her own family? Would she really trust the word of a woman who is not credible over the word of her own family member just because the family member is male or just because the accuser is female?
Even this begs the question: what if she were being accused by a man of sexual assault and he provided no evidence? Is an accusation all it takes to destroy someone, evidence be damned?
“I would fight. And I would make sure women are heard.” They are being heard. No one is keeping them from expressing their supposed or real grief. The Republicans in the SJC bent over backwards to make sure Ford would be heard. For a couple of weeks, she kept herself from being heard with flimsy excuses.
But this also points out the sexist nature of her argument against Kavanaugh. “Make sure women are heard.” What about male victims? Are they not to be trusted, credible or even allowed to be heard because they are men? If a woman is accused of rape (and it happens. Not as often, but it happens) then is the woman to be credible? Is she to be believed over the accuser, even if the accuser provides solid evidence against her?
This is the problem the #MeToo movement is creating: women’s words over truth. But this all stems from the larger problem the Left altogether is creating: feelings over facts; Leftist agenda over truth.
I mocked the woman’s answers to Cassidy’s question. But it sadly highlights the kind of damage the Left is causing. She did not care to answer his question, just offer more Leftist talking points. She’s like a computer, picking up on certain key words being thrown into the conversation and offering answers that often do not make sense. Trying to hold a conversation with that protester is like trying to hold a conversation with Siri – you just can’t do it.
Have you ever tried holding a conversation with Siri? You’ll notice that she doesn’t pay attention to the flow of the conversation or even what was said before the last thing you said. She answers to specific key words in each, individual sentence you speak. She’s a robot, so we can understand her limitations. But this woman is real (as far as we can tell). She has no excuse for offering answers that don’t really answer the question.
I literally asked Siri the same question Cassidy asked the woman: “Are you ok as a person to go ahead and to accept a non-corroborated charge to destroy someone’s life?” Siri replied: “I don’t have an answer to that…”
Siri is more honest than the Leftist protester. Then again, this is a question surrounding morality. A robot can’t answer a question about morality because a robot does not understand morality. But a human being should be able to. The Left always considers itself to be morally right, to be tolerant, to be the good guys. I imagine Hitler thought he was morally right to kill the Jews. I imagine he thought he was the good guy.
The reality is that, like Hitler, the Left is entirely immoral. What they support is that which is immoral. Abortion, gay marriage, transgenderism, men using women’s restrooms (which ironically would lead to more #MeToo stories that they say they want to end), the use of recreational drugs that destroy one’s own body in the name of “fun”, and many more. The Left is deeply immoral and as part of this immorality, they damage the people they reach.
That woman needs some serious help. I doubt anyone can logically convince her that what she is doing, accusing Kavanaugh of rape based solely on what is nothing more than hearsay at this point, is anything but moral and right. That what Ford, Ramirez and especially Swetnik are doing is morally wrong. That what the MSM and the Democrat Party are doing is morally wrong.
She cannot see the horrors the Left is perpetuating. This is the systematic destruction of the rule of law and it’s being applauded by those who consider themselves Leftists.
The point of this article isn’t to try to convince other Leftists that what they are doing is morally wrong and illogical. They will never admit that or even briefly consider it as the truth. The point of this article, and really of most if not all of my articles, is to show everyone else the lunacy that is the Left. You cannot possibly argue that anything the protester argued was logical and outside the realm of lunacy. She is emotionally invested in the destruction of Kavanaugh and in the Left’s #MeToo movement to destroy any and all conservative men.
No logical person would even consider aligning themselves with this lunacy.
I will wrap this up soon because this article is getting a bit too long, but I want to point something out: Charlie Kirk recently wrote on Breitbart that Andrew Breitbart, the founder of Breitbart News, abandoned his liberal views and became a conservative during and after the Clarence Thomas hearing that was reminiscent of the Kavanaugh story. He makes the point that one can hardly imagine how many Andrew Breitbarts were born after this Kavanaugh story and with the way the media has run this story.
I mention this because Breitbart was a logical person. The people who are still adamantly against Kavanaugh and believe the accusations solely because women are making them, despite the lack of evidence presented, are all examples of illogical people. But within the Democrat Party, there have to be at least some people who are seeing this and are disgusted by it.
I certainly hope that’s the case, because what the Left is creating is horrible, but the good news is that it’s not for everyone. Logical thinkers will leave this lunatic culture that exists within the Democrat Party and rethink some things.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that is 100% free of any cost. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles put together in a single email. Check it out today!
It’s not exactly unheard of for a media source to actually act like a proper journalism source and fact-check a Democrat the right way. However, it is rare, which is why I marvel at the fact that, after Democrat Candidate for Senate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke claimed he did not try to flee the scene of an accident in 1998 after driving drunk, the Washington Post fact-checked him and gave him a rating of 4 Pinocchios.
In a debate last Friday against Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Beto was faced with the charge that on September 27th, 1998, he was caught driving drunk and attempting to leave the scene of an accident he created. While he did admit to having driven drunk, admitting that there is no excuse for his behavior, he adamantly denied attempting to leave the scene of the crime.
During the debate, this is what O’Rourke said regarding the topic: “I did not try to leave the scene of the accident, though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense, and I will not try to provide one.”
However, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler looked into the allegation made against O’Rourke and O’Rourke’s counterclaim. Kessler noted: “The Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News had recently obtained police reports of the collision and reported that O’Rourke had done so.”
The report stated that on September 27th, 1998, roughly at 3 in the morning in Anthony, Texas, police officer Richard Carrera had been dispatched to the scene of a collision on I-10, roughly a mile from the border with New Mexico. Officer Carrera met O’Rourke and wrote in a complaint that “The defendant (O’Rourke) advised in a slurred speech that he had caused an accident.”
In another report, Carrera wrote that O’Rourke “was unable to be understood due to slurred speech” and that he displayed “glossy eyes” and “breath that smelled of an alcohol beverage.” When the officer asked O’Rourke to step out of the vehicle, O’Rourke “almost fell to the floor.” Upon being given a breathalyzer, O’Rourke clocked in at 0.136 and 0.134, which is above the legal limit of 0.10.
A witness to the accident had informed Carrera that O’Rourke’s vehicle passed him going at high speeds in a 70 mph zone, lost control of the vehicle and “struck a truck travelling the same direction.” Carrera wrote that O’Rourke “then attempted to leave the scene. The reporter then turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and try to get the defendant to stop.” The incident and crime report stated that “the driver attempted to leave the accident but was stopped by the reporter.”
Kessler then wrote that some people said the Post could not “rely on police reports because they often have incomplete and contradictory information.” Kessler also noted that the O’Rourke campaign issued no response when the Post offered them the chance to talk.
Finally, Kessler concluded that “At The Fact Checker, we place a high value on contemporaneous records. The police reports show not only that O’Rourke was highly intoxicated but that a witness to the crash said he tried to leave the scene… given his blood alcohol content at the time of the crash, O’Rourke’s memory 20 years after the fact is not nearly as credible as the police reports written just hours after the crash… he earns Four Pinocchios.”
As I said, it is rare for the media to try to be journalistically fair and credible. Now, I’m not saying they are credible just because they are going against the word of a Democrat, particularly a rising star in the Democrat Party (if he wins, that is, which I would doubt). They are credible because they look at the evidence presented, i.e. the police reports, and contrast that with O’Rourke’s claim, as well as the likelihood that his inebriation could have affected his memory and come to the conclusion that the police report from a few hours after the incident is more credible than O’Rourke’s defense 20 years later.
The ironic thing is that this then offers some problem to Dr. Ford’s accusation against Brett Kavanaugh. Now, I won’t get into too much detail, as the testimony hearing and confirmation hearing have not yet happened as of the writing of this article. However, if we, and by “we”, I include Kessler, make the argument that O’Rourke’s memory likely was faulty due to his inebriation, then we can likewise make the argument that Dr. Ford’s memory likely was faulty due to the fact that she had also been drinking.
Now, I don’t know exactly how much O’Rourke was actually drinking (though he reported having had only two drinks, which should not have gotten him as drunk as he was given his stature and weight), and we also do not know how much exactly Dr. Ford was drinking. However, Dr. Ford did mention in her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that she herself had been inebriated during the time of the alleged assault.
How inebriated, I cannot say, but given that this was a 15-year-old girl at a likely unsupervised party, it could have been a fair bit, barring any sort of self-restraint from Ford.
Like I said, I won’t get into too much detail about the Kavanaugh case, but it is important to point out that if we are going to go by the rule of law regarding O’Rourke driving drunk, causing an accident and attempting to flee the scene of said accident, we should also go by the rule of law regarding the allegations made against Brett Kavanaugh.
O’Rourke himself had a presumption of innocence, but police reports prove his guilt. Kavanaugh himself should have a presumption of innocence as well (though the Democrats like Chuck Schumer want to pretend that he doesn’t) and there has yet to be any evidence at all, let alone any substantial evidence to prove his guilt regarding any of the allegations made against him, including the newest one about a supposed gang-rape ring he had, which is all kinds of preposterous.
Regardless, that’s an argument to be made another time. As it stands, I mostly wanted to focus on the fact that a fact-checker from an MSM source such as the Washington Post exercised proper journalistic integrity and called out the Democrat candidate in Texas, not necessarily of lying, but certainly of not telling the truth as it happened.
Like I said, it’s not unheard of to have an MSM source abide by journalistic standards, but it is a sight to behold. It’s a rarity in today’s America, where every source is either talking about Russian collusion (which has since been pretty much entirely dropped, both because of Kavanaugh and because the Deep State is being exposed) or assuming Kavanaugh’s guilt, accompanied by Justice Clarence Thomas’ guilt, all-the-while ignoring Keith Ellison’s abuse and mistreatment of his then-girlfriend Karen Monahan.
To have the Washington Post, a news organization that features radical Leftists like Jennifer Rubin, offer a number of Pinocchios to anyone who is a Democrat is rare.
I simply choose to relish in it for as long as I can before they try to go back to attacking Trump/Kavanaugh/America/anything that is good and not evil.
1 John 1:8
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. Just as the name suggests, it is an entirely free newsletter that will not cost you a single penny. The newsletter contains a compilation of the week’s articles, as well as easy access to our online store straight from your e-mail inbox. All you have to do is put your e-mail address in the white box on the right side of the screen and click the subscribe button. It’s that easy!
It’s truly rare, with how often the Left signals the apocalyptic nature of Climate Change, that some climate scientists would release a study that challenges the over-dramatization of the whole scam.
Climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis conducted a new study downgrading the predicted global temperature increases forecasted by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by 30-45%.
“Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level,” said Lewis.
In other words, their study suggests that Climate Change isn’t, at most, half as bad as the U.N. says it is.
This study is in accordance to another study published a few months earlier by University of Exeter’s Peter Cox, which concludes that the U.N.’s most dire of models were too high. “Our study all but rules out very low and very high climate sensitivities,” said Cox.
With all of that being said, I should also mention a video published by PragerU about 2 years ago.
The video features an atmospheric physicist who taught at MIT for 30 years who goes by the name of Richard Lindzen. I won’t go into a whole lot of detail about the video; rather, I’ll simply leave it down below for you to watch and learn from.
What I will be focusing on is the fact that, at one point, Richard points out something scientists tend to agree on: “no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.”
Meaning that the only people that are confidently telling us that the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 or 100 years aren’t actual climate scientists, but rather scientists that don’t focus on the field of climatology and politicians, environmentalists, and media people. They are the only ones making the apocalyptic claims about Climate Change. And that much, we can already see.
But it’s important to point this out, because this signifies something important: the only people saying Climate Change will be our demise are the people who don’t have all the information and scientific knowledge to know otherwise.
We’ve known this for some time, but still. If anything, this further proves our conclusion that these people truly don’t know what they are talking about.
Knowing this, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise when actual climate scientists come in and tell people things aren’t nearly as bad as they think they are.
Now, with that said, I think I should also make mention of this: I’m not saying there is absolutely no change in the climate whatsoever. Frankly, I’d be a bit more worried if there was no change in the climate over time, because that’s indicative of something being seriously wrong with the planet.
What I’m saying is that humanity can’t possibly affect the planet anywhere near as much as the Left says we can. Even the video says that humanity is capable of having SOME noticeable effect, but what I’m saying is that the Left believes humanity is SOLELY responsible for Climate Change, which it’s not.
The climate is in nowhere near a horrible a state as the Left claims it is. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And the only things they can ever point to are computer models depicting what the Earth’s climate will be like in 50 to 100 years. Measuring such a thing is virtually impossible because there are far too many variables to confidently say what the Earth will be like in such a long time.
Heck, we can’t even accurately predict the weather IN THE NEXT WEEK! Let me tell you, there is no scientist out there that could’ve predicted a long winter for the beginning of 2018 back in 1968 or 1918. Likewise, we can’t accurately predict how THE ENTIRE WORLD’S CLIMATE will be in 2068 or 2118.
Of course, that doesn’t really matter to the people promoting the “end-times” scam. In copywriting, one of the tools for writers is to use a person’s emotions and feelings. Using someone’s fears to sell them something is a rather popular technique when the fear makes sense.
For example, no one in their right mind could possibly sell a car using the fear tactic. No one would say “buy this car or your spouse/friends/family will HATE you!” But when it comes to a person’s very life and environment, fear can be a good motivator.
How many people do you think tend to vote Democrat out of fear of Climate Change, believing that the Democrat candidate can actually do something to save their planet, and thus, their lives? I imagine tons of people do that, whether that is the only reason or not.
So, Democrats can abuse people’s fears of things they can’t directly control and fears for their own lives in order to win elections. It’s a clear scam, since no one can actually control it enough, so there is a constant fear and a constant “reason” to vote Democrat. The Democrat can’t do anything, but tells people he/she is doing the best they can but they will need constant support and cash flow to save your life.
Thus, Democrats can perpetually remain in power using the fears of people. That’s part of the big scam that is Man-made Climate Change.
Reality is far different from what they say it is. That’s something I’ve said multiple times in the past. Whether I’m talking about the numbers of people that support Trump, or the number of people who are conservative, or the reality of our planet’s climate status, the Left always alters things and makes them look favorable to them and devastating for everyone else.
They said Trump had about a 2% chance of becoming President the day of election, they say that most people despise Trump and regret voting for him, they say Republicans have no chance this November even though they have won multiple Special Elections and there tends to be more turnout in big elections, and they say we are perpetually destroying the planet with our mere existence.
That’s partly what led a lawyer to commit suicide by burning not long ago. It’s the Left’s attempt at altering reality (or at least people’s perception of reality) that drives most people to fear for their lives (at least on this issue), and thus, drives them to vote Democrat.
It’s nothing more than fearmongering to benefit the Establishment, environmentalist groups that Democrats donate to, and “scientists” who really should know better but are paid (either monetarily or through fame, or both) to parrot the Left’s positions.
This is a constant fight for the truth.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
We’ve often times compared Donald Trump to former President Ronald Reagan on this website. I’ve even written a whole article on that subject! “Could Donald Trump Be The Next Ronald Reagan?” And it seems as though I’m not the only person that has drawn comparisons between the two Republican Presidents.
Venezuelan Representative Jorge Arreaza gave an interview after the assembly, in which he said: “For a moment, we didn’t know if we were listening to President Reagan in 1982 or President Trump in 2017.” That sounds like a pretty nice compliment, wouldn’t you think? Well…
The Venezuelan Representative actually thought he was insulting Trump rather than complimenting him. Naturally, being from a nation that’s been socialist for decades, he probably thought Reagan was a terrible human being and that comparing Trump to him was some sort of insult.
Little does he know that people like me actually appreciate his “insult” towards Trump. If he thinks Trump is like Reagan in that respect, I know we chose the right person for the job.
To compare Trump to Reagan would be the equivalent of comparing Obama to FDR. The Democrats LOVE FDR, so to say Obama would be like FDR would actually be a compliment even if intended as an insult. Likewise, to compare Trump to Reagan is a compliment, not an insult.
And do you know what is interesting? The Left almost NEVER makes that comparison between the two. Why? Because Reagan’s legacy was that of making America great. He made America incredibly powerful and rich. He is one of the reasons the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And he’s remembered as the ideal Republican President. So to say Trump is like Reagan would not be advantageous to the Left.
Yes, the media has attacked “Reaganomics” or trickle-down economics, not knowing that it’s because of those economic plans and policies that America is so powerful. But they never go so far as to say Trump is like Reagan. Because too many people, including some democrats even today, like and have liked Reagan and think of him as one of the best presidents we've had.
Democrats certainly don’t want Trump to be remembered in such a way and are doing the best they can to make certain of that. Or at least make the illusion of it. Trump’s legacy is entirely up to him. What he does and doesn’t do is on him. There will be obstacles in the way (the Establishment being the biggest of them all), but the media can’t destroy Trump’s legacy. Because they couldn’t destroy Reagan’s.
Returning to the Venezuelan Representative, he certainly has plenty to learn. Above all things to learn is that his country is an utter hellhole in the world and it’s because of the very socialist government he’s defending. But other than that, he should learn one important lesson given to him by John Roberts in an interview on Special Report: “If you’re going to try to insult a Republican, don’t compare him or her to Ronald Reagan.”
Like I said, comparing Trump to Reagan is a massive compliment to him. And I certainly appreciate it, even though it was meant as an insult.
And the funny thing about the whole thing is that I agree with him on that instance. Even though it’s entirely likely that this representative was taught that Reagan was the closest thing to the actual devil, most people don’t see Reagan that way. And if he’s comparing the two Presidents, then most people will take it as a compliment, even with the context of the insult.
And, actually, let’s focus more on the meaning behind those words. To this representative, Reagan was probably a degenerate and evil person. And he clearly sees Trump that same way. The media certainly sees Trump that way. Hollywood certainly sees Trump that way. And the Leftist base certainly see Trump that way. They think he is the definition of evil. When in reality, they are the ones that follow and idolize evil people.
Kathy Griffin is clearly evil and messed up in the head, and yet people like her? Obama did his absolute best to destroy the country, and yet people like him and wish he was still President? The people on the Left are all evil, and yet people like them?
Do you wanna know why? It’s not just because evil people tend to like evil people. It’s not just because Leftists are evil and love the evil deeds of the Left. It’s also because there are people that have a misconstrued idea that evil is good and good is evil. As Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
These people think evil is good and good is evil. They think freedom for everyone is evil and freedom for only a few is good. They think Trump and Reagan are/were evil and think Obama and Hillary are good. They think following Christ and being a Christian is evil and following Mohammed and being an atheist is good. They think being white is evil and being a minority is good, when being a specific race shouldn’t matter. They think killing unborn babies is good and protecting them is evil.
These people are thoroughly messed up in the mind to think these things. There is a remedy, but they ignore it and mock it. They avoid listening to conservatives and think conservatives shouldn’t be allowed 1st amendment rights. They avoid listening to Christians. They avoid going to church and avoid reading the Bible. They avoid FOLLOWING CHRIST as though it would kill them.
And in a sense, it would. It would kill the evil within them. It would save them from eternal damnation. It would save them from the wrath of God that will inevitably fall upon them. It would educate them on how the world really works. It would turn them against socialism and communism. It would thoroughly change them, and they don’t want that.
They don’t want that because they don’t think it would be right. Like I said, they think being a Christian is evil and that Christians are evil. They’ve been fed that garbage since they were born, or at least started attending public school. Why would they follow Christ if they think doing so would be evil or not the right thing to do? I know the devil is the very definition of evil, therefore I wouldn’t follow him. But I also know that Christ is not just good, but is GOD, and so, I follow Him. Likewise, if I were a Leftist and have believed my entire life that being a Christian is evil, why would I become a Christian? Why would I follow Christ?
These people don’t know the true definition of good and evil. Whenever they can blame God for something bad happening, they will. I’ve seen people on social media blaming God for Hurricane Irma and Harvey. I’ve seen people ask “If God is so good, why does He allow bad things to happen?” They don’t know that when bad things tend to happen to people, they seek God for shelter and protection and He provides.
They don’t know that God is in full control of everything, even evil. They don’t see disasters as opportunities for people to get closer to God. They see them as opportunities to blame God and accuse Him of being evil and try to convince people to turn away from Him.
They don’t know God, and yet, they make accusations of Him and His character as though they did. They haven’t read the Bible and avoid it at all cost and yet, believe it’s a pile of garbage and shouldn’t be trusted and read.
The point I’m getting at is that they don’t truly believe they follow evil people or that they are evil themselves. They see sin as something to be celebrated, not to be repented of. They don’t know the Truth, and will do whatever they can to avoid learning it.
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
CNN was forced to retract a story about a connection between one of Trump’s aides and a Russian-owned bank. Since it was retracted, I won't directly quote what that story said. But that doesn’t matter. The fact that CNN was actually CAUGHT DELIVERING FAKE NEWS is what really matters here. As a result of this retraction, three CNN employees have had to resign.
Thomas Frank, the author of the story, Eric Lichtblau, an editor in CNN’s “investigative” unit that ran the story, and Lex Haris, the man who oversaw the unit, all resigned due to the fact that their story had been revealed as fake.
Now, I’m glad that this happened. I’m happy to see the Left take another loss. They’ve been writing fake news stories for a very long time, as Trump himself has said in a tweet: “Wow, CNN had to retract big story on “Russia”, with 3 employees forced to resign. What about all the other phony stories they do? FAKE NEWS!” Of course, it’s difficult to oust every single story the Left writes as fake news (thought, we try our best to do so here).
But the fact remains: the Left only continues to receive losses. While this loss is of a different kind than an election loss, this is a loss on their credibility (of which, they have had very little in recent years). The MSM typically doesn’t get caught in delivering fake news to people. When they write b.s. stories such as all the stories on how Hillary Clinton was going to win in a landslide victory over Trump, or the multiple “Trump colluded with Russia” stories, they tend to stick. They’re usually not retracted.
With the “Trump colluded with Russia” stories example, they tend to write something along the lines of “As of yet, there seems to be no evidence of collusion.” That’s typically what saves those articles from having to be retracted. And I just find it hilarious that a “Trump colluded with Russia” story tried to “give evidence” that was seen as clearly fake.
Don’t misunderstand, now. This doesn't mean that they will simply give up on the story altogether. Their narrative will always be that Russia hacked the election in some way and that Trump colluded with Russia in order to win. Even without any sort of real evidence, they will never give up that narrative. Do you want to know why? Because the alternative would be accepting the fact that Trump beat the Democrat Party fair and square. That Trump BEAT THE LEFT without any help. That Trump WAS THE PREFERRED CANDIDATE OVER WHAT THE LEFT HAD TO OFFER!
The Left’s very pride is on the line with this narrative. They can’t accept the fact that someone like Trump, whom they view as nothing more than scum, actually beat them in a fair election and that he was seen as the better option by the majority of the country.
The Left isn’t simply trying to deceive you and me with the stories they write, as evidenced by the fact that CNN was caught writing fake news. They are trying to deceive themselves too. I’ve said multiple times, in multiple articles, that the MSM and the Left as a whole lives in their own bubble. That they believe they are in the majority. That they believe the large majority of people agree with them, like them, and wish to vote for them. And I’ve said multiple times that they are wrong about that. But that’s just what they do. They DECEIVE people, including themselves.
They can’t tolerate the fact that most people disagree with them and like Trump. And so, they write stories that say Trump’s approval rating is in the toilet and that the only possible way that Trump won is that he had to cheat. They write these stories aimed at everyone. They target Trump supporters in order to discourage them and make them think that Trump is a bad guy who is good friends with and works alongside of Russia (though, that never works out for them). They target Millennials to indoctrinate them into believing Trump is evil and should be defeated in 2018 and 2020. They target liberals in order to get them to believe the same thing as Millennials. And they target each other in the MSM so that they can try to convince each other that they are not the massive failures that they are.
It’s all about DECEIT. But the problem with deception is that, since we know that that’s what it is, we (conservatives) are able to tell the TRUTH and deliver the TRUTH to people. Like a previous article said: “Truth is absolute”.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
In a previous article on the Manchester Terror Attack, I mentioned how I love it when the mainstream media publishes braindead stories. The reason being is that they are insanely funny to me when I read them. In this case, it’s a story written on FiveThirtyEight.com by Nate Silver on how Gianforte winning by 6 points is no reason for Republicans to celebrate.
A particular quote that simply brings a smile to my face, knowing just how ridiculously stupid it sounds: “… A night where Democrats are losing Montana by ‘only’ 6 or 7 points is consistent with the sort of map you might see if Democrats were either taking over the House (in 2018) or coming pretty close to it.” HAHAHA! Are you kidding me?! Their socialist cowboy loses by 6 points and they think this is ‘according to plan!?’ You simply can’t be serious! This is the equivalent of a basketball team being happy that they only lost by 10 points in a playoff game. “At least they didn’t get blown out.”, a fan would say.
Trust me, no basketball fan would be happy that their team lost by 10 points, even in a regular season game. And I have the feeling that, behind that fake wall of “we can still win in 2018”, there lies a scared soul that believes they simply won’t win in the midterm elections. I don’t even think this is desperation at this point. This simply might be genuine fear, masked by their smug character that thinks they still have a chance at retaking power in the government.
And why do I believe that? Because this further proves that they are wrong. They believe that Democrats are the preferred party. They believe Trump is hated and despised by anyone with a brain. They believe Russia hacked the election. They refuse to believe that their era of power is over. And this election is proof of it. Before the election, the Left was singing praise of the Democrat candidate Rob Quist. Much in the same way they did with Hillary. But now, Nate Silver writes “… Quist and Gianforte both have their issues as candidates…” He’s throwing their posterchild under the bus due to his loss!
The Left is absolutely terrified of believing that they might be wrong about everything. Trump isn’t hated. Montanans didn’t want a Democrat winning this special election. And Trump’s popularity isn’t down the drain.
Here’s yet another funny quote from Silver’s article that is bound to both make you laugh and think: “Quist winning by 1 or losing by 13 might’ve called for a recalibration of our assumptions (about how 2018 will go.); we don’t think this result (Gianforte’s 6 point victory) does.” In other words, had Quist won by 1 point or lost by 13, they might have to rethink their 2018 strategy. That is complete garbage. Had Quist won at all, it would’ve meant that everyone and their grandmother hated Donald Trump. The Democrats wouldn’t have rethought ANYTHING. If Quist had won by 1 point, it would’ve meant the beginning of a Democrat takeover of the House, followed by the Senate, followed by the White House, in their minds.
But this is yet another one of the Left’s endless stream of lies. If Quist had won, they would’ve celebrated as though their favorite team just won the Superbowl. But since he lost by a rather large margin, they have to pretend like this Republican victory means absolutely nothing, and that the Democrats are en route to a big victory in 2018.
In fact, this reminds me of one of the articles I wrote about the Georgia special election. On how the Democrat candidate didn’t quite clinch victory, but the Left pretended that he did. And the fact that he didn’t; the fact that he now only has one candidate to run against, and the fact that Quist lost in Montana terrifies the Left to the core. Georgia’s special election is less than a month from now, so we’ll have to wait ‘til then to see who wins. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left pretends it meant absolutely nothing if the Republican candidate wins.
They often hide themselves from the truth. And that’s because the truth hurts. Their entire lives revolve around one massive lie: that the vast majority of people love them. And when they are proven wrong, they have to pretend that they are still loved, even if it’s not quite as much as they previously thought. Or that the results were simply a fluke. Reality is far different, however. Most people no longer trust the media. Most people disliked Hillary as a candidate and by far preferred Trump over her. Most people in Montana didn’t want Quist as their congressman. And the most important point: Most people are not Leftists.
The Left must accept this truth if they ever hope to win again. (Which I hope they don’t)
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
We 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...