One of the many lies the fake news media often tells is that suburban women in America are approving less and less of President Trump, leaving the fake news reporters to believe that Trump is “finished” and will be soundly defeated come next November. Considering how wrong they have been about so many other things and considering how many other news reports should have “finished” Trump long before any of this, I’m surprised they still buy the crap they are selling. Drug dealers aren’t supposed to use their supply, but these people are constantly inundated in the garbage that they spew, so they believe it.
But in any case, fake news polls have tried to suggest that Trump is losing ground fast with suburban women, a demographic that usually leans Republican. However, this is far from the truth.
According to a recent report from OpenSecrets.org, President Trump has more suburban women donating to him than any of the 2020 Democrat candidates.
As you can see, President Trump tops the list of both Suburban Women Donors at 10,534, with Kamala Harris coming in behind him with almost 3,000 less donors, then Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, Booker, Warren, Klobuchar, Beto (who is no longer running), Crazy Bernie, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro and finally, Tulsi Gabbard.
He also tops the list of total contributions from suburban women donors at $8,293,135. Grace Haley, a researcher working for a research group that tracks money in American politics, wrote: “Suburban women, who power a significant electoral battleground, are a key demographic for 2020. Since Trump’s inauguration, more than 7,000 women in suburban districts have given large-dollar contributions to his campaign. That totals $8 million, the most of all candidates.”
Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner noted that in 2016, 28% of Trump’s “itemized contributions” were from women. For 2020, that number stands at 35%.
Now, when it comes to women in general, the President ranks 5th in donations out of all candidates at $15.1 million, behind Crazy Bernie ($17.1 million), Fauxcahontas, Mayor Pete, and Kamala Harris. But that’s just on paper.
According to OpenSecrets.org, “Campaigns are not required to itemize donations of $200 or less, so we do not have demographic information about Trump’s small donors giving to his joint fundraising committees with the Republican National Committee, Trump Victory and the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. An estimated 59% of Trump’s donations are from small-donors, so Trump’s contributions from women are most certainly higher than $15 million. Trump’s totals are underestimated more than the other candidates. Because Democrats are relying on ActBlue and the Republicans are not relying on the Republican equivalent WinRed as significantly, we only have most (not all) donor demographic data for Democratic small-dollar donors.”
In other words, while the President’s total from large-donor contributions puts him in 5th place, that only contributes to about 40% of his total contributions. He easily could be far higher, maybe even number one among women, if small-donor contributions were taken into account and recorded.
But even if we don’t know for sure just how much more money women have been giving Trump, one thing is for sure: he is not in 5th place and he has accrued more than $15 million from women in America.
Amy Kremer, chairwoman of Women for America First and co-founder and chairwoman of Women for Trump PAC, told Breitbart News that it’s “no surprise that women are contributing to the president’s campaign” because many women in the suburbs have families to take care of. “Women are focused on issues that impact our children and our families and President Trump is delivering results.” She also added that when women donate to him, “it’s an easy donation when you know what you are going to get in return and this president has followed through on his promises, and his policies have been good for women and their families.”
Open Secrets also made sure to mention that the Trump campaign acknowledges that suburban women often support the President more than reported because “the polling data does not account for suburban women who favor Trump but do not feel comfortable publicly saying so.”
This is generally true about many other things and within other demographics. Often times, people believe that Trump is such a polarizing figure that they do not wish to express support for him to media pollsters out of fear of shaming or persecution, so they withhold that support, either saying they are undecided, do not support him at all or say they support him but not too strongly.
This tends to happen because the media and the Democrats have been so toxic about anyone supporting Trump that people figure it’s better to keep your mouth shut or not express outward support for Trump and stay out of unnecessary conflicts. Most people just want to live their lives undisturbed by hateful people, so they support Trump because he’s not a nutbag like the rest of the Democrats, but won’t publicly admit it out of fear of being verbally or physically attacked or maligned.
But while people might be fearful of publicly supporting the President, they certainly show their support come election time or when it comes to donations. It’s part of the reason some ill-intending Leftists have tried to dox Trump donors because many won’t outright state they support Trump but still support him anyway and these hateful bigots can’t bear the thought of living next to a Trump supporter.
However, regardless of the circus that the Democrats orchestrate in the impeachment hearings (and oh boy, are witnessing some prime circus material here with Schiff establishing different questioning rules for Democrats and Republicans and with one of Schiff’s star witnesses admitting that he thinks Burisma should be investigated, which is what Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for), regardless of what the media tries to spin out of it and what the media tries to report (it started with quid pro quo but when there was clearly no evidence to support it, they shifted to “bribery” which is equally as lacking in evidence), many people support President Trump.
And one couldn’t blame them when the alternatives are a decrepit old man yelling at clouds, a communist pushing for the increasingly unpopular Medicare for All (Rasmussen reports that only 39% of likely voters support the plan, which is far lower than it was just a couple months ago), a fake Indian, and a self-righteous fake Christian who blames God for “making him” gay. One can’t blame them when all of these people have no issue with giving free healthcare to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND DECRIMINALIZING BORDER CROSSINGS!
Like Kremer said, suburban women want what’s best for their families and will vote and donate accordingly. Back-breaking tax increases to pay for everything on the socialist wish list is not what’s best for families and children. Reduction of civil liberties and constitutional rights of free speech and bearing arms are not what’s best for families and children. Putting America Last is not what’s best for families and children.
Trump delivers the opposite (where he can, considering the little support he gets from Congressional Republicans) and advocates putting America First.
Doing that, and more importantly, returning to God, are what’s best for families and children, not to mention the whole of the country.
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In what is perhaps a rather interesting twist of events, the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) released a “fact sheet” regarding the U.S. Women’s soccer team as part of a lawsuit filed by the Women’s team against the USSF alleging pay discrimination due to gender. As it turns out, the U.S. Women’s soccer team was LOSING the USSF money for most of the past decade, but they still were paid more money overall than the Men’s soccer team.
Just so there is no confusion and contradiction to my other article regarding the Women’s team being paid, the USSF and FIFA are two different organizations. If you remember, FIFA pays its male players roughly $400 million and its female players $30 million. As I said from that other article, from that alone, you would think there was gender discrimination, but I asserted that the Men’s team generate more revenue than the Women’s team, so they have a larger pool of money to receive (and the Women are paid a larger percentage from the smaller pool than the Men do in the larger pool).
But the USSF is slightly different. Back in June, the Women’s team released info saying that they brought in more revenue than the Men’s team did ($50.8M vs. $49.9M, so barely any difference, but still enough to drive their point). However, there are a number of things that actually hurt the Women’s team in their suit.
First, as it stands, that number has not been confirmed, as far as I can tell. They COULD be right, but given some statistics that we will see later on, I have my doubts regarding this.
Second, there is one major difference between the Women’s team and the Men’s team that affects wages, and that’s that one receives a base salary of $100,000, plus bonuses of $67,500 to $72,500 for playing in a national soccer league, while the other is not paid a base salary at all. The gender that is paid a base salary and bonuses is the female gender. The men are only paid bonuses for games.
What’s more, the Women’s team receives other benefits such as a 401k, health insurance, which includes maternity leave and injury protection. The men don’t receive such benefits.
Third, the USSF claimed that they actually pay women more than they do men. According to The Daily Wire: “USSF claimed that it paid women $34.1 million in salaries and game bonuses and ‘we paid our men $26.4 million – not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women’s players receive but which our men do not.’”
So if the USSF is correct, they are actually paying women MORE than men, simply due to salaries + game and other bonuses.
The USSF also claimed that the “hypothetical per game comparison” often used in Leftists’ arguments regarding gender wage discrimination (as far as soccer goes) isn’t exactly plausible because neither team has ever played 20 friendly matches in a year: “That said, if the men and women ever did play in and win 20 friendlies in a year and were paid the average bonus amount, a women’s player would earn more from U.S. Soccer than the men’s player – the women’s player would earn at least $307,500 (WNT and NWSL salaries, plus game bonuses) and the men’s player would earn $263,333 (game bonuses only),” according to the USSF.
But perhaps what is most damning for the Women’s case against the USSF is the following:
“From 2009 through 2019 – a timeframe that includes two Women’s World Cup championships – the Women’s National Team has earned gross revenue of $101.3 million over 238 games, for an average of $425,446 per game, and the Men’s National Team has earned gross revenue of $185.7 million over 191 games, for an average of $972,147 per game. More specifically, WNT games have generated a net profit (ticket revenues minus event expenses) in only two years (2016 and 2017). Across the entire 11-year period, WNT games generated a net loss of $27.5 million. Nevertheless, U.S. Soccer does not view these as losses, bur rather as an important investment in our Women’s National Team and in the long-term growth of women’s soccer.”
In other words, the Women’s team has LOST money for the USSF in most years in the past decade and STILL are paid more than the men are. And they dare to cry “sexism”?
But do you want to know what is honestly the saddest part of this? Reread the last sentence of the paragraph: the USSF did not see these net-loss years as losses at all, but as an investment in the future of women’s soccer. They are willing to take some years in the red for the sake of women’s soccer (which would usually be a bad thing for a business, but I suppose the Men’s team makes enough to make the USSF feel comfortable with such losses for the sake of women hoping to become professional soccer players). So basically, the Women’s soccer team, in their lawsuit against the USSF, is essentially acting like one of those spoiled kids who get everything they ask for and on their 16th birthday, are given a brand new and expensive car, but they cry and throw temper tantrums because “it’s the wrong color” or “it’s not the kind of car I wanted”.
Granted, I’m fairly certain most of those instances on those reality TV shows are fake, but there are a lot of comparisons here. The U.S. Women’s soccer team, as far as the USSF is concerned, makes MORE money than the Men’s team does, but they cry and whine and lie that they actually don’t.
Matter of fact, a spokeswoman for the Women’s team said that the USSF’s “fact check” was a “ruse” and a “sad attempt” at thwarting the lawsuit: “The USSF fact sheet is not a ‘clarification’. It is a ruse. Here is what they cannot deny. For every game a man plays on the MNT, he makes a higher base salary payment than a woman on the WNT. For every comparable win or tie, his bonus is higher. That is the very definition of gender discrimination.”
It certainly would be the very definition of gender discrimination if anything she said was actually true.
First, the Men’s team does not actually make more in base salary than a woman. They don’t make ANY base salary, as was just discussed.
Second, I highly doubt this is a ruse. USSF President Carlos Cordeiro wrote an open letter in which he stated that he ordered U.S. Soccer staff to perform “an extensive analysis of the past 10 years of U.S. Soccer’s financials.” This is what the fact sheet eventually turned into. He also said that the analysis was “reviewed by an independent accounting firm.” So while the USSF did an internal analysis of the organization’s financials over the last decade (largely because they are pretty much the only ones who can do that apart from a government agency), the analysis was also reviewed by an independent party, allowing for objectivity.
However, what does appear to be a “ruse”, or at least highly illegitimate and wrong is the U.S. Women’s suit against the USSF. They are suing under the claim that they are being paid less than the men are, but USSF financials show a completely different story – one where the Women’s team is actually paid MORE than the Men’s team due to having a base salary to accompany other bonuses that the men don’t get. And sure, while the men get paid more in bonuses than the women do, the reason for that is because they don’t receive a base salary.
Apart from the USSF, the Women’s team doesn’t have much of a case regarding gender discrimination in their wages either. As I discussed in the other article regarding the U.S. Women’s team, the only reason FIFA pays the women less money is because the Women’s division generates less revenue for FIFA than the men do.
The Women’s World Cup that took place in Vancouver four years ago only generated around $73 million in revenue, 13% of which went to the players. The 2010 Men’s World Cup in South Africa generated $4 billion in revenue, of which 9% went to the players. The Men’s World Cup in Russia back in 2018 generated $6 billion, while this year’s Women’s World Cup made roughly $131 million.
Over the last World Cups that were played, the Women’s World Cup only made a little over 2% of what the Men’s World Cup made. So in what world could the Women’s team at all be able to make anywhere near as much as the Men could? The Women already get paid a larger portion of the revenue from their World Cup than the Men do.
But getting back to the USSF, they are actually rather nice to the women, all things considered. The Women’s division tends to bring losses for the organization, but the idea of having a program for women who wish to become professional soccer players is noble enough to accept these losses, so long as they can offset them with the Men’s revenue (and the Women do sometimes bring in profits anyway).
The USSF pays women more than they do men, they tend to LOSE money regarding their Women’s team, give women more benefits and a base salary which they do not give to men, and the Women’s team, in their self-righteous and toxic mentality of victimhood still believe they are being discriminated against when NONE of the statistics show that to be the case?
Not a good look for the U.S. Women’s team.
1 Timothy 6:9-10
“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I often say that the Left is self-destructive. That the Left, at its core, is a way for society to self-destruct. You need only look at the Green New Deal to see the cyanide pill the Left wants to force down our throats (and their own, too).
I also often say that the ideologies they hold tend to lock horns with itself. For example, the Left supports both LGBT people and Muslims. Islam abhors homosexuality to the point where it is encouraged to eliminate anyone who is even suspected of being gay. The biggest shooting in American history, the Orlando gay night club shooting, really speaks more about Islam’s hatred of homosexuality than it does about gun laws in America (the terrorist shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place).
But we’re not even talking about that sort of infighting, though that will only continue in the future anyway.
No, today, I’m talking about a lesbian woman being kicked off of an LGBTQ Commission for following the biological and factual reasoning that a transwoman, regardless of what they identify as, is still a male and a transman, regardless of what they say, is still female. Science says as much.
Julia Beck is the lesbian woman we’re talking about here. She was kicked off the commission last October after “identifying a transgender rapist as male, his correct biological sex, though he ‘identifies’ as a woman,” according to The Daily Wire.
Beck recently was interviewed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson about this. “I believe in truth”, she told Carson. “I believe that people should have these conversations and say things that matter without fear of punishment.”
Well, the unfortunate thing about this is that the Left largely does not want to have these conversations, because conversations about this alludes to people disagreeing with them and opposing them to any extent, and that cannot be allowed to occur.
Carlson replied to Beck by saying: “I couldn’t agree with you more, and I’m grateful that you have that attitude. But why do you think it was important to say this, specifically?”
Beck answered: “Well, when we get down to it, women and girls all share a biological reality. We are all female. But if any man, if any male person can call himself a woman, or be legally identified as female, then predatory men will do so in order to gain access to women’s single-sex spaces, and this puts every woman and girl at risk.”
THANK YOU! This is precisely the argument everyone on the Right was making regarding transgender bathroom laws (which the cowards in North Carolina caved on a long time ago). This sort of permission for biological males to use women’s restrooms just because they can make the claim that they identify as a woman and no one will bat an eye at that puts women and girls inside those restrooms in unnecessary peril.
Already, rape and other sexual assault acts are being called out as often as possible (see the entire #MeToo movement), so why would the Left be willing to put more women and girls in danger?
Actually, dumb question. These evil s.o.b.’s think the best option to dealing with gun crimes is taking away guns from those who obey the laws, further putting them in danger and in the lines of sight of those who do not care for any laws, much less gun laws.
If anything, both their desire to take away guns from law-abiding citizens and desire to allow men to enter women’s restrooms further shows the sort of self-destructive ideology I talked about in the beginning of the article. They claim to want to solve problems, but the only problems that arise come from the “solutions” the Left brings up.
But returning to Beck, she actually happens to be of sound and intelligent mind here. She recognizes the unnecessary dangers brought about by men in single-sex and typically female-only areas.
Carlson made sure to note in his show that it has always been his “instinct” that the transgender activists’ agenda “is not going to be good for girls in the long run.”
Beck replied by saying: “I absolutely agree. In many states, men can legally identify themselves as female and gain access to women’s single-sex spaces, and sports is just one institution where men are taking titles, scholarships, and this is a problem.”
Of course. Men are biologically stronger, on average, than women. Of course, there are some individual exceptions, but men tend to be stronger than women.
I remember watching Trump’s show “The Apprentice” some time ago and remember that, in the season opener, the very first task Trump gave to the teams, which were men vs. women, was running in one of his golf courses to his private helicopter in a race.
While these people were not necessarily athletes, and even though they were all wearing business suits that were definitely not made for running, unsurprisingly, the men won the race.
Why? Because men tend to be more physically fit, stronger, faster and athletic than women.
Watch an NBA game in comparison with a WNBA game and you’ll clearly see the differences between men and women, even among athletic men and women. Most men in the NBA can dunk, even if it’s not necessarily a flashy dunk, while most women in the WNBA can hardly reach the rim, if even that.
Biologically speaking, men tend to be physically superior to women. If anyone has a problem with that, don’t take it up with me, take it up to the One who made it this way. See if you can find some way of calling God a misogynist to His Face.
Returning to Beck, she then went on to say that women who even dare to speak out regarding the negatives and outright dangerous repercussions of radical transgender activism are pretty much “silenced”.
Carlson then asked if Beck “found it hard to advocate for biological truth and the protections of women and girls when she, an open lesbian, belongs to the LGBT acronym, which notably includes T for transgender,” according to The Daily Wire.
She answered: “The letters in the acronym share, um, not much. The L, G, and B, are based on sexuality, sex, biological reality, but the T is based on gender identity, which is not based in biological reality. In fact, I would argue it is opposed to biological reality. The LGB is very different from the T, and I don’t think it is fair to lump us all into the same acronym.”
Okay, a few things here. First, I completely agree with her on this. In fact, the B in LGBT stands for BISEXUAL. And bisexual insinuates a maximum of only two genders. Someone that is bisexual is someone who is attracted to both males and females, both men and women. Not transgender men or transgender women. Not Apache helicopter men and M1 Abrams tanks women. Not any of the 666 flavors of artificial gender. Just men and women. The only two options.
So the T in LGBT, at the end of the day, is in some ways an affront to the B in LGBT. Or, the other way around. In any case, it naturally creates infighting, much like we see in Beck’s case, though she is a lesbian woman trying to stand up for all women who are legitimately being left in the dust and led to the gallows by a self-righteous Left that further moves the needle towards Satan.
Second, her argument about transgenderism being opposed to biological reality is spot on and something we often say as well. No matter what you say, how you identify, you are what God made you to be. If you were born with the XX chromosomes, you are female. A biological female and that cannot be changed as your DNA is what dictates your gender among many other things.
If you have the XY chromosomes, you are male. And only a male. Nothing else will ever change that.
To make the claim that someone can be a female, even if they are a biological male, is to spit in the face of science (and God, really). It defies logic and facts.
And funny enough, this defiance of logic and facts also does what I talked about in the beginning: self-destruct society.
Logic and facts are necessary in a civilized society. When logic is ignored and facts are challenged (not in a scientific effort to advance the craft, but in a political effort to distort reality), you don’t make progress in humanity, you do the opposite of that. Regression is the only thing that results in ignoring and distorting reality.
Just take a look at the world around us, where you can be punched in the face or berated and verbally attacked for holding a differing opinion from someone else. And it doesn’t even have to relate to politics. Differences in opinion in terms of philosophy, art, even video games can result in such brutish violence.
This lack of self-control of emotions is almost no different from barbarians killing each other off or attacking each other for next to no reason. And this is the direction society is heading towards if the Left gets their way. There is no room for civilized discussion. Everyone needs their own safe spaces and if that cannot be accomplished, emotions flare and human life, which has lost all meaning after decades of abortion advocacy, is brutally ended.
And I’m not just talking about being unable to physically get to some sort of “safe space”. I’m talking about being so triggered by the mere existence of a differing opinion that severe action is taken. An extreme and rare scenario, yes, but a possible one nonetheless.
Even Julia Beck explains in an article about lesbianism and transgenderism how her views leave people to actively ostracize her, to the point where she explains that “people I trusted told me to die in a fire for naming male people men.”
A figure of speech, of course, but when does it stop being mere linguistics and begin being actual threats, or even actual attempts?
Granted, most people that wish that upon someone (as evil as they may be) won’t actually do it. But it only takes one madman or woman (notice that there’s only two options here) to actually attempt it.
In any case, despite our political and religious differences, Beck and I can at least agree to hold on to what is real, logical and factual. I’m not saying Beck is a conservative because of this (though I imagine many people will call her that, meant as an insult). But I am saying that she at least has common sense.
And common sense is a rare trait in Leftist advocacy groups.
1 Corinthians 15:33
“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Fellas, I bring you good news. If you want a woman to like you, a good first step would be being chivalrous. This is true even in the case of feminists who will likely cry “patriarchy!” as you open a door for them.
Jokes aside, this is true according to a recent study from University of Kent and Iowa State University scientists. In this study’s abstract, the scientists inform us that “benevolent sexism” (BS… stop laughing), or well-meaning sexism, despite the “harmful consequences”, shows that these men “are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit)” in the relationship.
The scientists note that “women find benevolent sexist [BS] men attractive, not because they are ignorant of the harmful effects, but despite being aware of them. This suggests that the desirable aspects of BS attitudes and behaviors are sufficient to overcome the perceived negative effects.”
Right, just one question. What are the “perceived negative effects”? What are the “harmful effects” of what these scientists call “benevolent sexism”? What is so wrong about being chivalrous? What harm does it cause a woman for a man to hold the door open for them? Does it make the woman believe that she is inferior to the man and needs him to hold a door open for her because she is, in some way, incapable? That’s ludicrous!
Being chivalrous has nothing to do with a man being superior to a woman. It has everything to do with a man wanting to show respect for a woman by doing something nice for her. What age do we live in that doing something nice for someone else is considered a bad thing?
Well, at least even the feminist women who consider chivalry to be sexist are still attracted to men who are chivalrous.
The Daily Mail noted that the research was collected from five study groups full of women, with the largest group comprising of 233 women and the smallest comprising 104. The women were asked to view different scenarios of interactions with men, including “men who were kind but in what is considered a sexist way, and men who treated the women as equals and didn’t offer any special treatment.” In these interactions, the women were asked to rate the men’s “warmth and attractiveness, and how willing they thought they would be to provide for, protect or commit to them.” The women also divulged their own leanings in terms of their feminism.
The scientists noted that “Our proposal is that women approve of BS attitudes and behaviors because they are taken as cues that a man is willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed.”
And as I have said before, even feminists are attracted to this “BS” behavior. “Evidence shows that many women – even those who desire [equal] relationships – want a man to be chivalrous, by, for example, paying for dates and opening doors for them. Furthermore, the finding that high feminist women, and not only low feminist women, rated a [sexist] potential romantic partner as more attractive despite being more aware of the detrimental effects, suggests that the attraction may be a mate preference for women in general, and not just for women who endorse traditional gender roles.”
I am actually kind of surprised by a couple of things. Primarily, obviously, the fact that even feminist women are attracted to chivalrous men. But also the fact that a man paying for dates is considered “chivalrous”. I just thought it was common sense. What self-respecting man would allow his date to pay for the date, even if it’s just her portion?
Regardless, this is good news for all men out there… well, straight men, at least. This study definitely shows us that, despite it being “2018” as Leftists who are apparently cognitive enough to recognize the year will say, women are still attracted to chivalry, even women who are self-described feminists.
Again, I must call into question why chivalry could even be considered to be sexist in any way, benevolent or not, but these results are actually very favorable to all men out there. In an age when chivalry is not only dying, but being demonized as it’s being lowered into the grave, it’s fantastic news to hear that chivalry is still considered attractive, a positive thing, to all women regardless of political leaning or feminist leaning.
This is the sort of thing that coincides with a UK Daily Mail article about women being attracted to “muscles and money”. I have already written an article surrounding that particular topic, but it does show that the concept of an alpha male, and a chivalrous one at that, is still alive and well. Of course women are attracted to an alpha male. I’ve already detailed the reasons why in that other article, but it makes sense to go over them here as well.
The study mentioned that men who are chivalrous tend to show that they are more willing to invest in the relationship, such as protecting women. Likewise, men who are considered “alpha” show that they are more willing to protect women from potential harm or danger. This has been true since the dawn of time. Since the creation of mankind.
And let’s not forget the hand Hollywood and the media (including t.v.) plays in this sort of thing. In today’s Hollywood, any semblance of masculinity is barraged and attacked. It’s considered sexist to show “toxic masculinity” and it’s something they believe must be changed. Men cannot be allowed to be men, because if they are, that somehow is destructive to women. Nevermind the fact that women have more power and control when it comes to a relationship. Nevermind the fact that women are the ones who have the authority to accept or decline a man’s courtship. If men are men, that harms women.
So, they encourage men to be wussies. They encourage men to be beta males. To show, if not the opposite of masculinity, at least no masculinity at all. Because of this, and because of constant attacks against chivalry, women’s expectations are lowered when it comes to a potential romantic partner. So when said romantic partner shows chivalry and masculinity, women are attracted to it. Not because they ignore the “toxicity” of masculinity, but because they are biologically built that way by the Lord.
In the Left’s attacks against masculinity, they ignore a crucial factor: biology. Not surprising considering they ignore biology when it comes to transgender people. Masculinity, to women, will always be an attractive factor. This is true regardless of whether you call it evolution or God’s Will for the roles of men and women.
Women tend to be attracted to men who are men. Who knew?
“However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
You really have to laugh at these pitiful attempts by the Left to smear Trump at every chance they get. Journalist Tina Brown wrote an article on the New York Times titled: “What Harvey and Trump have in common.”
The Left never misses an opportunity to attack Trump. In the story, she writes: “What I learned about Harvey in the two years of proximity with him at Talk (a former magazine) was that nothing about his outward persona… was the truth. He is very Trumpian in that regard.”
“He comes off as a big, blustery, rough diamond kind of a guy… The real Harvey is fearful, paranoid, and hates being touched (at any rate, when fully dressed)”. Right, here’s the thing: Trump doesn’t hide behind a layer of confidence. He doesn’t have an outward personality that is different from his inward one. He’s 100% Trump all the time. Oh, and let’s not forget: HE’S NOT A SEXUAL PREDATOR!
Regardless, the article continues: “It takes one brave whistleblower and then two to get the ball rolling and give the shattered sharers of the same story permission to speak out to The New York Times. Kudos to Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan, and now all the many new voices captured by Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker.”
So that last part is nice, and gives credit to the whistleblowers who were brave enough to call out the disgusting pile of garbage. But then, she reminds everyone that she’s an ignorant Leftist and ends her article with this: “Harvey is an intimidating and ferocious man. Crossing him, even now, is scary. But it’s a different era now. Cosby. Ailes. O’Reilly. Weinstein. It’s over, except for one – the serial sexual harasser in the White House.”
Yep, she just has to remind everyone what the topic is about. It’s not about the horrible things Harvey has done. It’s not about the terrible Hollywood Leftist culture that allowed him to be a menace to women for THIRTY YEARS. No, she just has to remind people that the Left thinks Trump is a sexual harasser as well. Even though it’s absolute b.s., they still run with it.
Even though they began to run that story of “sexual harassment” THREE WEEKS before the election just to smear Trump, they still think it’s real, even though there’s no evidence of it. Like Russia, they choose to go with the narrative over facts. If the story is against Trump, it doesn’t matter what the facts are. They will live and act as though it’s the truth.
But I think it’s interesting who she lists as sexual harassers here. “Cosby, Ailes, O’Reilly (which is just as b.s. as the Trump one), and Weinstein.” Notice anyone missing? His first name is the same as Cosby’s and he used to be POTUS. 5 seconds on the clock! Got it? “Who is Bill Clinton?” That’s correct!
Interesting how she conveniently forgot to mention the most sexually disturbed President this country’s ever had. Ah, but I don’t blame her for not mentioning him. NO ONE ON THE LEFT WANTS TO REMEMBER!
We all know what Bill did. Hillary knows what Bill did. Tina knows what Bill did. Monica knows what Bill did TO HER. Barack knows what Bill did. Bill knows what Bill did. And God knows what Bill did. And the Left wants to pretend nothing happened. So, when the topic of sexual harassers comes up, they conveniently forget to mention him and make sure to blame Trump for things he didn’t do.
We’ve lately been on the topic of why women don’t like the Left. Part of the reason is because the Left enables sexual harassers and lets them do what they want, for as long as they’re not caught. And once they’re caught, they act with insincere shock and disgust, and make sure to redirect the topic of conversation to a prominent Republican or conservative figure.
And this is the ENTIRE Left. The politicians, the journalists of the MSM, and the celebrities of Hollywood. I mean, think about it. This has been a well-kept secret in Hollywood for THIRTY YEARS! There’s been mentions of it in the past, but it never got to this point. The stories would always be killed. They would be killed because they didn’t want to harm a prominent member of the Democrat Party and major donor.
Money and their agenda supersedes morality for the Left. In fact, THE LEFT DOESN’T HAVE ANY MORALS! If they did, they wouldn’t condone this type of behavior and keep it secret. They wouldn’t advocate for people to change their genders. They wouldn’t encourage a mental disease. They wouldn’t allow for a hateful cult of death to be allowed to establish itself outside of the Middle East. They wouldn’t advocate for the murder of children and pass it off as “women’s healthcare”.
The Left is the one who allows for sexual harassment to occur RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM! They are not in women’s side, THEY ARE AGAINST THEM! And they dare call Trump a harasser?
There’s a verse in the Bible that goes like this: Matthew 7:3: “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?” It speaks of a sinner’s hypocrisy, calling another person a sinner, when they themselves are sinners. But this quote only somewhat makes sense for this subject.
You see, TRUMP IS NOT A SEXUAL HARASSER! So there’s no “sexual predation speck of dust” in his eye. But there is a MASSIVE “sexual predation speck of dust” in Bill Clinton’s eye. In Harvey’s eye and many, MANY Leftists’ eyes. They call Trump a sexual harasser when they themselves harbor and protect sexual harassers for as long as they don’t get caught.
How many more Harvey Weinsteins are there in Hollywood at the moment? How many women are in peril by simply working with a powerful studio executive? How many of these predators are being protected by their Hollywood buddies? How dangerous is Hollywood for women?
1 Timothy 3:11:
“In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Saturday Night Live typically loves to poke fun at current events, particularly if they involve the President. In their latest show, they made sure to slam and mock the President as much as they could, talked about the horrible Vegas shooting, made a skit on O.J. being released from prison, and made a tribute to the late Tom Petty. But one thing they chose not to do anything about is Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment case.
Now, I don’t particularly care what SNL shows or doesn’t show. However, what they chose to say was the reason for not mentioning Weinstein is what raises eyebrows.
According to Fox News: “SNL creator Lorne Michaels said they decided not to go after Weinstein because he’s from New York.” Adding that “It’s a New York thing.”
What is? Rape? Rape is a ‘New York thing’? Sexual harassment? Sexual predatory? That’s not a New York thing, that’s a Leftist thing. It’s a Bill Clinton thing. It’s a Bill Cosby thing. It’s an Anthony Weiner thing. IT’S A LEFTIST THING!
But what a poor and gutless excuse to give. First of all, even if it was “a New York thing”, that doesn’t excuse Weinstein or any man from the egregious acts he committed to women. It’s just not right. Second of all, Trump is from New York and they mock him every single week! So it’s not the fact that Weinstein is from New York that is the reason they chose not to mention him.
They chose not to mention him or make fun of him because they’re on his side and he’s on theirs. He’s a Leftist through and through. He’s even trying his best not to be savaged by people on his side by being an ultra-liberal and constantly attacking gun owners and Trump. And he’s gonna get away with it too, at least with his Leftist buddies.
Whatever the court decides his punishment will be is largely irrelevant. He’s still going to be supported by the hypocritical Left no matter what. The media will make sure to bury this story as much as they can and as fast as they can, only slightly reporting the result of the case while at the same time trying to put a positive or at least VERY neutral spin on it.
The Left doesn’t honestly care about what Weinstein did. For their own reputations, celebrities like Meryl Streep will make sure to give him a slight tap on the wrist for it, and never bring it up again. The Left isn’t outraged at what Weinstein did because he’s on their side.
They’ve made up countless stories about Trump being sexist and a predator, saying that he wants to “grab women by the p***y” and that he wants to do it with his daughter. Meanwhile, they have an ACTUAL predator right in front of them and they slightly say “bad boy, bad!” and then move on like nothing happened!
SNL made sure not to do anything that would make things look worse for Weinstein, even though what he did is horrible and nothing they can do or say will make it seem less than horrible. In fact, their INACTION and their lack of speaking out against him makes things more horrible.
The Left is showing their true colors here. I remember Hillary Clinton tweeting: “To all the little girls watching… never doubt that you are valuable and powerful & deserving of every chance & opportunity in the world”. What was missing from that tweet was: “unless a liberal man wants to do stuff to you. Then, you have no value, no power, and are not deserving of any chance or any opportunity in the world.”
She’s gone after women who have come out against her predator husband, as has the Left back when it was a major story. Now, Weinstein has been exposed as having a 30 YEAR TRACK RECORD OF PREDATORY BEHAVIOR AND ACTIONS and they are doing much of the same! They are trying to, if not destroy the women he’s attacked, at least make it seem like it’s no big deal. Because to them, it really is no big deal.
For all their claims that women should have more power, they sure don’t really think so when a liberal man wants to do stuff to them. To them, women should have power only until a predator comes along and decides he wants to do stuff to them, as long as he says he’s a liberal and says he’s against Trump.
And for all the talk about Hillary Clinton being good for women, she sure hates the ones that didn’t vote for her. She has said that the women who voted for Trump were, in essence, “forced” to vote for him by their husbands. That they voted against their own voice. How insulting is that? How disrespectful is that? She thinks nothing of conservative women, and she assumed ALL women would vote for her. And when she lost, she blames the wives of Trump supporters because they “caved” in some way and they voted wrong. That is deeply insulting and offensive to conservative women, not that it matters to her.
I recently wrote an article about a college course asking why women became conservative. One of the reasons is that liberalism does nothing to protect women. In the womb, they are in danger. Out of the womb, they are in danger. In the Middle East, they are in danger, and the Left either ignores the danger or PUTS THEM in danger.
Now, we see exactly how the Left feels: If you’re a liberal man and are against Donald Trump, you are more than welcome to use women like dolls and sex objects. You’ll be slightly told you’re bad and not to do it again, but nothing more will come out of that from the Left. You can be as despicable as they claim Trump is, but for as long as you’re on their side, it’s ok.
The Left is loud and clear about how they feel about women. Everything they’ve said up to this point is absolute bull crap and everything they’ve DONE up to this point proves just how little they care about women.
Women are worth so much more than The Left makes them out to be.
“Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
According to CampusReform.org, Amherst College “is offering a course this semester exploring why ‘some women become right-wing leaders’ while others ‘fight for the rights of women.’”
Yes, the college course phrases it that way. “According to the course description, the seminar will explore ‘the consequences of neoliberalism, cultural conservatism, Islamophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiments for women of different social and economic strata as well as women’s divergent political responses.’”
“Why have some women become prominent right-wing leaders and activists while others have allied with leftist, anti-racist, and other progressive forces to fight for the rights of women and other marginalized groups? How have transnational forces influenced both forms of women’s activism? To what extent are those cross-national similarities in the impact of the far right surge on women, gender, and sexuality?”
I just love the fact that they’re so insanely delusional that they attempt to differentiate conservative women and liberal women as one side fighting for racism and the other fighting for women’s rights and anti-racism.
I also love the fact that they mention Islamophobia. You know what? I don’t think people should attend this course, because I will answer the course questions here in this article. And I can guarantee that you will learn a lot more here than you would in that course. And the best part? It’s completely free! So call now, if you want to take advantage of this incredible offer!
Ok, jokes aside, here’s why women become conservative:
One of the bigger news stories floating around this week is the case against Harvey Weinstein. To those who don’t know, Harvey is a liberal film producer and studio executive. He’s currently on trial for multiple accounts of sexual harassment, which he’s been doing for 30 years! According to the New York Times, 20 years ago, “Harvey Weinstein invited Ashely Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel… he had sent her up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower… ‘How do I get out of the room as fast as possible without alienating Harvey Weinstein’, Ms. Judd said she remembers thinking.”
If you know what Harvey Weinstein looks like and picture him saying that, you would have to hold yourself back from puking. But it’s noteworthy to tell what Ashely Judd said she recalled thinking. Clearly she was creeped out (I don’t blame her), but she still didn’t want to be on his bad side. He didn’t want to “alienate” the creep. Why? Because he’s a liberal. And liberal men get away with anything they want, as long as they serve the Democrat Party some sort of purpose.
It happened with Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Anthony Weiner (to an extent) and now, with Harvey Weinstein, who is being advised by a feminazi lawyer who forgives everything he’s done. Now, if this had been any conservative celebrity, the media and just about everyone would completely tear into them and call them reprobate and unredeemable. But since this is a liberal man we’re talking about, he is supported by the media and his cohorts as long as he promises to be better in the future.
No conservative celebrity would be such a harassing creep, so that’s one reason women become conservative.
2) The Left supports a death cult that would set back women’s rights by centuries.
Earlier, I mentioned that I loved the fact that the course description mentions Islamophobia. Here’s why: Islam may indeed be the single most dangerous thing in existence for women, black people, gay people, children, and anyone who has a differing opinion from them.
In the Middle East, there’s no such thing as “women’s rights”. Women are less than dirt there. Women are objects of reproduction and punching bags for angry Muslim husbands. I mention the other groups because Islam treats everyone as less than human, but while the focus here is women, I do want to talk about the others as well.
In the Middle East, anyone even remotely assumed to be homosexual is to be executed. In the Middle East, black people are objects of servitude. In the Middle East, children are currency (particularly girls). In the Middle East, Jews and Christians are persecuted at best and executed at worst for their beliefs.
In the Middle East, men are gods and everyone and everything else is unworthy of even breathing the same air as them.
The college course requires the students to read a book titled The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s about a dystopian future in which women are nothing and men are kings. Sound familiar?
Of course, the book (and Hulu original series) are about a Christian society that rules the country. It attacks Christianity, even though the whole world would be like that under Sharia Law, not Christianity.
So Islam is easily the most dangerous thing in the world for women, and the Left supports it at every turn they can (they used the term Islamophobia in the course description, didn’t they?)
That’s another reason women become conservative, because Islam is deadly to them.
3) The Left wants to make women unsafe
To a Leftist woman, her best line of defense against an attacker is either a rape whistle or yelling out for help that may or may not come (in time or at all). To a conservative woman, her best line of defense is her gun. She prays she doesn’t have to use it, but also thanks the Lord that she has it when she needs it.
I sometimes see a Facebook post that basically says this: “If a Leftist woman is being sexually assaulted, the best way to defend herself is to pee herself so that the harasser gets turned off. If a conservative woman is being sexually assaulted, the best way to defend herself is to pull out her gun and make the harasser pee himself.”
And that’s just sexual harassment. If it’s, say, an abusive husband or boyfriend, a woman could feel safe by brandishing a gun (as long as she knows how to use it too). But the Left hates the 2nd Amendment and anyone who owns a gun. They want to take away people’s guns, which would only make them more vulnerable. This goes double for women, as they are typically physically weaker than men.
Which brings me to:
4) The Left’s agenda is anti-woman
The latest term favorited by Leftists everywhere is “transgender”. They claim there’s 63 genders and that anyone can choose any of them, like food in a grocery store. I’ve already seen “transgender” men (men who claim to be women) enter women’s only competitions and dominating them.
Of course they would, since these are competitions such as sprinting and other physical competitions, men naturally have an edge over women. “Transgenders” completely destroy the notion of men and women in the world. Not to mention that any man who claims to be a woman just to enter the women’s restroom is placing women and girls in tremendous danger.
If a Harvey Weinstein claims he’s a woman and is allowed in women’s restrooms, he at best would watch women pee and at worst, sexually assault them. Neither is a good option for women.
5) Conservatives protect women in the womb.
t's safe to say that out of the 58 million abortions that have taken place since Roe v Wade, roughly half of those babies must have been girls. While Leftists around the world have no issue killing them, conservatives want to protect them. Polar opposite to Muslims who believe lives are worth nothing, conservatives believe lives are worth EVERYTHING! Regardless of what gender, sex, religion, race, or political affiliation you will have upon and after birth, your life MATTERS. Leftists thoroughly believe that isn't the case.
So Leftists place women in constant danger with their beliefs. Between encouraging Islam in the world, taking away people’s guns, encouraging men to pretend to be women for 5 minutes to be in the women’s restroom, and believing that your life means nothing in the womb (and out of it, really) liberalism is one of the most dangerous things for women.
So that’s why women become conservative. THEY DON’T WANT TO FEEL UNSAFE AT ANY POINT! They refuse to be victimized by Muslims, by illegal immigrants (and there’s plenty of stories about illegals raping young girls to make you sick to the stomach), they refuse to be victimized by liberal men who “offer a massage or to watch them while they shower”, and they refuse to be left without a good defensive weapon such as guns should any of the previous cases arise.
Conservative women are among the strongest people there are. They are fighters and not objects. Victors as opposed to victims. And there’s nothing that scares a Leftist more than a conservative woman.
1 Timothy 3:11
“In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...