It’s been nearly two entire months since the tragic killing of George Floyd, and Leftists in various places are still taking advantage of it by staging violent riots, so I think it is prudent for us to revisit just how bad of a political misstep this has been for the Left.
A little over a month ago, I wrote about an ABC News poll which showed 64% of Americans opposing the movement to “defund the police,” while 34% backed the idea. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, the gap has somewhat closed a bit, but I think there is good explanation for it that does not support the idea that the Left’s ideology is gaining popularity.
You see, in that poll, “only 40 percent support cutting funding to police in order to spend more on social services, while 55 percent oppose such a move.”
Based on the numbers alone, you would think the communist movement to defund the police is gaining traction. After all, the number of people who support such a move went up by 6 percentage points while the number of people who oppose it went down 9 points. However, in every poll, how a surveyor phrases a question is extremely important (as well as the political demographics of the polls, which routinely underpoll Republicans).
Note exactly how ABC News reported the figures: 40% support defunding “in order to spend more on social services.” The way the Left can make their insane proposal of defunding the police appear to be less insane (which still is just as insane as ever) is by directing people’s attention away from the defunding of police and towards the increasing of funding for other social programs.
Many Americans have gotten used to supporting social programs, ashamedly so, and many would want to see an increase in funding for such social programs, if they actually help people (which they hardly do, largely depending on the program). It’s like a simple magic trick: a magician directing the audience to pay attention to what the magician wants them to pay attention to, getting them to look at one hand, while doing something else with the other hand to perform the trick.
It’s pure misdirection, but the point still remains, as people should realize, that the Left wants to defund the police, which means cutting off their entire funding and rendering them functionally inoperable.
That’s probably the best explanation I have about the difference in the numbers, as it’s still clear as day that people DON’T want to live in a society that is objectively less safe due to an absence in police.
The poll also talks about the popularity of Black Lives Matter (63%) – but even that number is a bit iffy, since there are people that make the distinction between the phrase and the Marxist organization, but there are those who view the phrase and the organization as inseparable – and the popularity of removing statues that commemorate Confederate officers (interestingly, 52% oppose removing the statues with 43% being in support), but the most important aspect of the poll, in my opinion, was the “defunding the police” aspect of it. And even with the b.s. spins they want to put, this is a losing issue for the Left, which is why Biden isn’t throwing his “full” support.
Of course, anyone with a brain would understand that he will support whatever his Leftist bosses will tell him to support, and his comment about “absolutely” being willing to defund the police demonstrates this.
At any rate, moving on to the next poll, we have a Fox News poll about how concerned Americans are about the breakdown of law and order in various cities and how serious of a problem this is. And suffice to say, the Left REALLY is stepping on a rake by supporting this lawlessness.
When asked, “How serious is the problem of a lack of law and order right now?”, 79% of respondents said that it was a serious problem, while only 17% said it wasn’t serious. In other words, 79% of respondents are concerned, to one extent or another, about the breakdown of law and order in many American (Democrat-run) cities.
This includes 78% of men, 80% of women, 80% of whites, 81% of blacks, 77% of Hispanics, 78% of non-whites, 73% of people under the age of 30, 75% of people between 30-44, 82% of those aged 45-64, and 82% of those 65 and older.
Breaking things down by income and political parties, 81% of those making under $50k a year are concerned and 78% of those making more than $50k a year agree. 75% of Democrats, 86% of Republicans and 74% of Independents are also concerned, which is fairly eye-opening. 73% of Democrat men, 75% of Democrat women, 84% of Republican men, and 88% of Republican women are concerned about lack of law and order.
Among political ideologies, 71% of “liberals”, 77% of moderates, 84% of moderate/conservative and 87% of conservatives are concerned. Of those who approve of Trump’s job as president, 85% are concerned about lawlessness and of those who disapprove of Trump’s job as president, 75% are also concerned. 79% of those in battleground states are also concerned about lack of law and order.
Finally, breaking things down by education, we find what white people with a college degree (77%) are a bit less concerned about this than whites without a degree (83%).
89% of white evangelicals are concerned, as well as 79% of those living in urban areas, 80% of those in sub-urban areas, and 80% of those in rural areas. 79% of parents are also concerned about this issue.
Now, out of all of those numbers, there are obviously quite a few that stand out.
For one, the general response from everybody was overwhelmingly in the direction of “people are concerned about there not being law and order here.” While I perhaps shouldn’t be so surprised that this is as much of an 80-20 issue as it is, it’s good to see the actual numbers on paper (or my computer screen) to understand how badly the Left chose the wrong side on this issue.
People want to be safe, and taking away the ability of police officers to do anything jeopardizes that safety. Do you want to know why there have been record numbers of gun sales in recent time? Precisely because of this. And while the media will lie and claim that the record number of gun sales is responsible for an uptick in crime, anyone with half a brain can tell that the uptick started WELL before people started rushing to get guns. Or at least, it somewhat precedes it. Law-abiding citizens legally purchasing firearms are NOT the ones SETTING BUILDINGS ON FIRE, STAGING AUTONOMOUS ZONES AND RULING LIKE MINIATURE WARLORDS.
When police funding is threatened, particularly to the extent that it is – that they would be rendered totally ineffective to stop crime – it becomes people’s jobs to defend themselves because no one else will do it. People were buying guns in response to the anarchy and chaos of the riots, in an attempt to defend themselves, their families and their property should these terrorists find their way to their doorsteps (such as the McCloskey’s, who are being punished for demonstrating their willingness to defend their homes from people who broke into their community).
When the Left threatens police funding, they turn the country into the Wild West. People HAVE to have some assurance of their safety, so they seek out weapons with which to defend themselves.
Like I said, it’s really not surprising at all that this is so much of an 80-20 issue, with the 20 being the hardcore Left and people who actively participate in these acts of terrorism, while the 80% are sane, rational individuals who do not wish to live in an American Somalia.
That 71% if liberals, another stand-out figure, also agree is quite telling.
Virtually EVERYONE is sick and tired of a lack of law and order, which is probably a good part of the reason as to why Trump is beginning to send the Feds in even more force in crime-riddled cities.
While the Left and the fake news media will cry about this being Nazi Germany and compare the Federal agents to Nazi Stormtroopers (like the drunkard occupying the seat of House Speaker recently did), the numbers show that the VAST majority of people are sick of this nonsense and want an end to it.
The Democrats cannot win running on anarchy, but they will seemingly do their darndest to do it, even while trying to gaslight people and lie to them, misdirecting them as to what their true intentions are.
People want to be safe. If Trump can prove that he can provide that, he will win in an absolute landslide.
“For he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I said in part 1, the fake news media will run b.s. story after b.s. story about Trump to make him look bad, like an idiot, like an evil genius, and sometimes, like both, which often leaves people perplexed if they don’t know the natural illogical fallacy that is the Left’s very nature.
They will talk about how Trump has killed over 100,000 people due to his response to the Chinese coronavirus (funny how they never blame Xi Jinping for the “4,000+” deaths the CCP has reported), or how he colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election or how he was in the process of colluding once again, with the Ukrainians this time, to steal the 2020 election, or how he is a massive racist, anti-Semite, a selfish jerk, etc., etc. – all things that are easily disproven by anyone who can tell reality from fiction.
However, they would never dare, in this day and age, run with stories that make Trump look good because doing so would go against their established narrative. Anything that makes Trump look good helps him and that bothers the Left, so they don’t do it. In the past, however, there have been plenty of reported stories about Trump’s kindness, generosity, and even courage to fight against racism and anti-Semitism.
Here are the final four stories of the eight total that I have been talking about that show Trump for who he is that the fake news media would never dare report.
First, there is a story from 1991 about Donald Trump stopping a would-be mugger armed with a baseball bat.
On November 20, 1991, the New York Daily News reported: “Call it The Donald to The Rescue. When he saw a ‘big guy with a big bat’ bashing another fellow, Donald Trump did what any self-respecting billionaire would do: He ordered his driver to pull over.”
“Witnesses said Trump, with Marla Maples tugging at his arm to try to stop him, leaped from his black stretch limousine Monday evening during the assault on Ninth Ave. near 45th St.”
“’Someone in the car looked over and said, “Gee, look at that, it’s a mugging,”’ Trump said. ‘I said to my driver to stop the car because it was brutal-looking,’” according to the NY Daily News.
“Trump was at first reluctant to discuss his daredevil deed, but then he warmed to the task.”
“The guy with the bat looked at me, and I said, ‘Look, you’ve gotta stop this. Put down the bat.’ I guess he recognized me because he said, ‘Mr. Trump, I didn’t do anything wrong.’ I said, ‘How could you not do anything wrong when you’re whacking a guy with a bat?’ Then he ran away.”
The thing about this story is that there were some witnesses who reported that Trump got there after the mugger had left, having joined the crowd of on-lookers, but there are other witnesses, such as one who chose to remain unidentified, who said: “There was a guy with a bat, hitting a guy over the head, and Trump yelled, ‘Put that bat down. What are you doing?’ The guy dropped the bat, came over and started talking to him.”
Trump reportedly left the scene once he saw a doctor treating the victim and heard that an ambulance was in route to the scene. Unfortunately, the police said the attack was not reported, so that’s about as far as the whole thing went.
While there is some contention to the validity of this claim and the details surrounding the incident, this does sound like something Trump would be willing to do (maybe to a certain extent). Trump has been known to have helped people in time of need (as the other stories both in this article and the last one go to show).
The next story happened in 2008, when famous singer Jennifer Kate Hudson lost her mother, brother and nephew, who were found murdered in Chicago (Hudson’s mother and brother in their Chicago home and Hudson’s nephew had been reported missing, with the FBI finding his body three days later).
Upon this family tragedy, Hudson, as well as some of her family members, received help from Donald Trump in the form of being allowed to stay at Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago free-of-charge.
Trump told People Magazine: “They are safe. She’s a great girl and we’re protecting them well.”
The famous singer was, understandably, in total shock over the events that took away some of her family.
Seemingly, the perpetrator of this heinous crime was the ex-husband of Hudson’s older sister Julia, who was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and one count of home invasion, being convicted on all counts and being sentenced to three life sentences without parole.
While this was a short story with few details (the article is from shortly after the events took place) and most of it centers around the tragedy that befell the Hudson family, it does still somewhat speak to Trump’s kindness, that he allowed the famous celebrity to reside in his hotel with all expenses covered.
It’s a small thing, compared to some of the other things I have thus far shared, but I’m certain the Hudson family appreciated the gesture and his kindness.
The next story I will share goes as follows:
In 2013, a bus driver by the name of Darnell Barton had just picked up 20 high school students to take them home from school. On his route, Darnell “spotted a woman standing along the railing on an overpass, leaning over the traffic below,” according to the UK Daily Mail.
Darnell reportedly pulled his bus over and talked the woman down from ending her life. This gesture, which reached Trump’s ears, led to the then-real estate mogul to write a letter to the bus driver, saying: “Your quick thinking resulted in a life being saved and for that you should be rewarded.”
Trump came through with that notion and sent Darnell a check for $10,000, by way of then-Mayor Byron Brown’s office.
Trump further wrote: “Although I know to you it was just a warm-hearted first response to a dangerous situation… it saved her life.”
It’s awfully clear that Trump appreciates people’s lives (as if his pro-life record as POTUS didn’t already indicate that) and when someone goes the extra mile to help someone in need, Trump understands that such a heroic action, though it might often go unrewarded or even unthanked, ought to be rewarded.
Finally, there is the story of Donald Trump helping a former Miss Wisconsin with her fatal disease.
This one is a tad bit more well-known than the others because it was reported during the 2015 primaries, and the former Miss Wisconsin, Melissa Consin Young, shared this story at a campaign rally for Trump.
At the rally, Young thanked Trump for giving her son “a future” after she is to succumb to autonomic failure, a disease that affects the part of the brain that regulates our heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, respiration, digestion and other vital organs. The disease keeps that part of the brain from functioning, obviously severely altering the functions of the body parts and functions I just described.
Young thanked Trump for helping her Mexican-American son, ensuring that he would be cared for following her passing. At the rally, Young said: “You’ve saved me in so many ways. In recent years, I’ve been struggling with an incurable illness and I’m on home care now and it was caused by a doctor’s medical negligence. In those dark days fighting – right now, all the tubes have been removed and I have a ‘do not resuscitate’ order and I have a seven-year-old son – those days in the hospital, I received from you a handwritten letter that says ‘to the bravest woman I know.’”
“I wanted to thank you because through you and your organizations, my son, a Mexican-American, through your organizations and just being able to stand on that stage with you in 2005, and the outpouring of love, ultimately provided my son with a full-ride to college,” Melissa went on to say.
Melissa explained that, while she was pregnant with her son, she fell very ill. “During my pregnancy, I became very ill. I couldn’t stand without passing out. Just lifting my head was too much. I begged my doctor to help me over and over. My husband would carry me into his office. I was begging him saying I’d sleep there on his floor til he helped me. I told him over and over again for months that I think I’m dying. His response was ‘It’s your first pregnancy, you look great.’”
“He failed to hear me or even run simple blood work.” Three weeks before her due date, she explains, she passed out trying to get to the phone and her husband found her and called 911. At the hospital, they had to induce labor.
According to the Daily Mail, “She says because of the negligence there is no way to restart that part of her brain and her heart is like that of an 88-year-old woman.”
Truly, a heartbreaking story for the former Miss Wisconsin. I certainly wish her the best and pray for a miraculous recovery, knowing God is the Healer and no illness is too complicated for Him.
At any rate, the story, alongside all of the others that I shared in this article and the previous one, speaks of an entirely different Donald Trump than the one that the media often depicts.
The fake news media will take things out of context, spin things, or even just make things up about the guy when he doesn’t deserve that at all and has, in the past, been renowned for being a very generous individual, completely antithetical to the sort of monster that the MSM portrays him as.
They will say he is a racist and anti-Semite when he has, both as POTUS and before he was elected, demonstrated a unique love and interest for minorities and Jewish people (and really, everyone).
Donald Trump is far different from what the Left and the fake news media portrays him as. This much is perfectly clear to any rational individual.
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The fake news media will run b.s. story after b.s. story about President Trump in an effort to make him appear to be one of several things: he’s supposed to either be A) an absolute idiot, B) an evil genius setting out to destroy America, or C) somehow, a combination of both – an incompetent buffoon who plots with the world’s baddies and is somehow successfully evading the oh, so brilliant federal and congressional investigators chasing his schemes.
It’s all a bunch of phony, agenda-driven crap and anyone with a double-digit IQ can tell. But unlike what the media will say about Trump (now, at least), he has historically been one of the kindest and most generous celebrities around.
Here, I will share 4 of 8 stories that the fake news media will never share with you about Donald Trump, or if they do, will try to spin as either not having occurred or actually being bad or some such nonsense. The reason for this is that I really want to include all of them, but doing so would make this article far too long, so I’m splitting this into two different articles.
First, the story of Donald Trump saving a woman’s farm from foreclosure.
In September of 1986, a then-66-year-old woman named Annabel Hill was facing foreclosure of her Atlanta, Georgia farm, which her family had owned for many generations.
Her husband, Lenard, had committed suicide roughly a year earlier in an attempt to save the farm with life insurance money. While she did receive the payment for his insurance policy, it wasn’t enough to cover the family’s debts.
Her story was helped be spread by an Atlanta businessman who had helped another farmer to keep his land, when her news conference appeared on NBC’s Nightly News, which was watched by Donald Trump.
Trump wrote about her story in a couple of his books – “The America We Deserve”, where he wrote: “I saw a story on the news about Annabel Hill, who’d hit bottom,” and “The Art of the Deal”, where he wrote: “It was a very sad situation and I was moved. Here were people who’d worked very hard and honestly all their lives, only to see it all crumble before them. To me, it just seemed wrong.”
The future president reached out to the Atlanta businessman, who got him in touch with the bank that held Hill’s mortgage. Trump wrote: “The next morning, I called and got some vice president on the line. I explained that I was a businessman from New York, and that I was interested in helping Mrs. Hill. He told me he was sorry, but that it was too late. They were going to auction off the farm, he said, and ‘nothing or no one is going to stop it.’”
Trump further wrote: “That really got me going. I said to the guy: ‘You listen to me. If you do foreclose, I’ll personally bring a lawsuit for murder against you and your bank, on the grounds that you harassed Mrs. Hill’s husband to his death.’ All of a sudden the bank officer sounded very nervous and said he’d get right back to me. Sometimes it pays to be a little wild. An hour later I got a call back from the banker, and he said, ‘Don’t worry, we’re going to work it out, Mr. Trump.’”
In the end, the auction was called off and Trump, as well as a few other wealthy people, helped raise, or even contribute, the rest of the money necessary to pay off the debt.
In a rather famous picture, Donald Trump invited Hill to Trump Tower on Christmas and, surrounded by members of the media and other people who had donated to help Hill, burned the mortgage papers for the farm (as seen below).
Hill said of Trump’s motives for the charity: “The only way I can explain it was God touched his heart.”
That certainly is likely.
Moving on to the next story, a quick one this time, we have the story of an 11-year-old girl named Megan, who faced the terrible challenge of living with a debilitating bone disease called Brittle Bone Disease.
Originally, Megan went on the Maury Povich show looking for a friend, because Megan noted that she was lonely and without friends. On Maury’s show, he introduced her to another girl who had the same disease, a girl named Tiffany.
Trump had heard of this little girl and wanted to help, so he made a special video for her and gave her a nice gift. In the video, Trump told her: “I think you are so beautiful, both inside and out. I had a little something, a little gift that I gave to Maury, who’s a friend of mine… and I hope you and your mother have a good time with it. And you’re very special, and you just keep it up and keep up that attitude. So good luck, and you stay in touch.”
While Trump couldn’t physically be there to give Megan her gift, he had Maury give her the gift, which was a check of an unknown amount, but given the reaction from Megan and her mom, as well as Maury’s commentary of “all those zeroes”, it was likely a very generous amount.
The third story I will talk about is the story of a Jewish Orthodox boy with a rare disease who was saved by Donald Trump thanks to his generosity.
Andrew Ten, a then-three-year-old child, and his parents were seeking medical treatment in New York, though they lived in Los Angeles, requiring them to make the trip to NYC via plane.
However, they had a big problem: no commercial airline would allow them to fly on their crafts because of the elaborate life-support system (a portable oxygen tank, a suction machine, a breathing bag and an adrenaline syringe) that Andrew could not live without. They had no normal means by which they could get to New York in order to get Andrew the treatment necessary to him.
Out of options, Andrew’s parents made a last-ditch effort to save their son and one that most people would think was a long-shot: they called Donald Trump, explained their situation, and begged him to help them out.
According to Harold Ten, the father of Andrew, “Mr. Trump did not hesitate when we called him up. He said ‘yes, I’ll send my plane out.’” And that’s exactly what he did. Trump’s private jet landed in New York’s La Guardia airport and out of it, came Andrew, his parents and three nurses working on Andrew.
Asked why he thought Trump allowed them to use his private jet, Harold replied: “Because he is a good man. He has three children of his own and he knows what being a parent is all about.”
Further, Harold, being Jewish, said he believes Trump fulfilled the following Talmudic saying: “He who saves one person’s life is as if he saved the entire world.”
The young boy reportedly was born healthy, but one morning at the age of 10-months, he suddenly stopped breathing. Six months later, the same incident occurred and doctors were unable to explain what was causing this. Andrew reportedly had not cried since he was two-and-a-half (I should mention this story was from 1988, so this was a long time ago and I don’t know what has become of him since then) and required being fed through a tube, having lost his gag reflex and the ability to swallow.
Like I said, I don’t know what has become of the guy, but I hope he is well.
The fourth and final story I will share in this article is a story that really should dispel any insinuations that the guy is anti-Semitic or racist in any way (and there are plenty more stories that show he isn’t a racist or an anti-Semite, not that the Leftist media would ever care to acknowledge this, since doing so would run contrary to their narrative).
This story is about Donald Trump insisting on including Jews and black people at Mar-a-Lago in the 1990s, a time when it was common for both to be, at one level or another, excluded from entering or being a part of the clubs.
Talking on Newsmax in a July 2015 interview, author Ronald Kessler said: “When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.”
You see, when Trump was trying to open up his golf course in Palm Beach, he had trouble getting approved by the town council, which was imposing restrictions on his bid.
The Washington Post, on Nov. 14, 2015, reported: “Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one.”
“Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”
Trump, obviously, ultimately won the fight and in 1997, then-Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman praised Trump for “elevating the issue of discrimination at private clubs,” according to Chron. It’s rather interesting how the ADL treated him then, having fought against racism and anti-Semitism, contrasted to how they treat him now, claiming racists and white supremacists support Trump. The ADL is phony Leftist garbage anyway, but it’s worth noting what one of their presidents said about Trump fighting racism in an industry seemingly filled with it.
“Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up” for Jews and black people, according to Chron.
Tomorrow, I will share another four articles that the media won’t share about Donald Trump, but for now, it is quite obvious to anyone with an Internet connection and the desire to find out the truth about anything that Donald Trump is not the hideous monster the fake news media constantly portrays him as.
He is not a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, selfish anti-Semite. Story after story of his actions speaks to the guy’s generosity and kind-heartedness.
I mean, the very fact that he decided to run for president when he absolutely had no need to do so and only stood to lose by doing so, just to get the chance to save the country he loves, is an extreme indication of the guy’s selflessness.
Donald Trump is a good, Godly person (as in someone who acts according to the Will of God, not someone who is comparable to God, so don’t get it twisted) and anyone telling you otherwise is either ignorant of that or a hateful moron.
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
We have talked plenty about the demonization of police officers as a whole, but have hardly gone deep into those demonizations. White cops get automatically called racists just because of their skin color (and the people calling them such things do not realize the irony in their actions), and non-white cops, be they black or Latino, etc., essentially get called traitors to their race for being police officers.
The Leftist mentality is a sick and depraved one, full of nonsense and error that does not reflect reality in the least. To the Left, the police are a symbol of oppression and tyranny, built specifically for those purposes, when in reality, they are there to protect and serve (as if that slogan on the side of police cars wasn’t enough to tip people off).
Granted, not all of them manage to accomplish that, considering officers like Chauvin, the one who killed George Floyd, had 17 complaints levied against him for use of excessive force. Sometimes, a police officer does more to hurt than help, but the purpose of the police, and actions of the overwhelming majority of the police, is/are to the benefit, not the detriment, of people.
But the Left sees them as nothing but monsters, which is why they call the white cops “racists” automatically, not knowing who they are, what they believe, what they’ve done, where they come from, etc., and call the non-white cops “race traitors”, also not knowing their stories.
Well, one black cop held an interview with KGW8 recently to talk about the protests happening in Portland day after day and night after night (not that the media is covering these protests because that does a disservice to the Left and I think the media has figured this out, finally). Officer Jakhary Jackson was interviewed in a press conference about being on the frontlines at the Portland protests.
The interview (video below) was rather long at roughly half an hour, so I won’t cover everything that was said, just the most important parts, at least in my opinion.
One of the things Officer Jackson said was: “I got to see folks who really do want to see change like the rest of us that have been impacted by racism. And then I got to see those people get faded out by people that have no idea what racism is all about. Never experienced racism. They don’t even know that the tactics that they are using are the same tactics that were used against my people.”
He added: “Coming from someone who graduated from PSU with a history degree, it’s actually frightening… They say if you don’t know your history, you’re doomed to repeat it. And watching people do that to other people just because of what they’ve decided to do with their life.”
Speaking more about the earlier thing he said, about people that were actually impacted by racism get faded out by those who have no idea what racism is all about, Officer Jackson provided a very good and crucial example of the sort of idiotic “white knighting” white liberals do for black people when no one asked them to do anything of the sort.
The example is that, often times, he, as a black officer, is approached by black people and asked his opinion of the George Floyd killing or some other issue relating to race and the police. But every time he attempts to engage in conversation with people of color, and seemingly, this ONLY happens when minorities talk to him, a white liberal protester will come in and shout, saying “F the police. Don’t talk to him,” or something akin to that.
Seemingly, this is such a frequent occurrence that Officer Jackson can tell when it’s coming. Recently, Officer Jackson explains, a young black girl came up to him to ask him why he wouldn’t talk to the protesters, and as he began to explain that every time he tried doing so, he would get cut off by some white protester, as if on cue, a white protester came in and interrupted him. Jackson said: “right when I said that, this white girl pops right in front of her,” cutting him off from conversating with her. The black girl was amazed that it happened, saying: “He just said that was going to happen.” Jackson then said: “I told you,” to the girl.
Jackson then tried talking to the white girl who had interrupted his conversation with the black girl, saying: “I’ve been called the N-word. She’s been called the N-word. Why are you talking to me this way? Why do you feel that she can’t speak for herself to me? Why is it that you feel you need to speak for her when we’re having a conversation?” The white girl seemingly just replied: “Someone told me to do it.”
Peculiar. Considering I believe Democrat orgs are in charge of organizing these protests (I mean apart from BLM and Antifa), and have seen videos of Leftists recruiting people (bribing them) to participate in these protests or just do something to someone, I wouldn’t be surprised if that “someone” who instructed her to interrupt the conversation was a member of a Leftist organization.
The reason I theorize this is because we all know Leftists hate the truth, hate facts and hate knowledge. If the black girl had a real heart-to-heart conversation with the black officer, she might reevaluate certain things and actually grow in her understanding of the world. The Left can’t afford this, what they view as an atrocity – a black person leaving the Democrat slave plantation of thought – so they have random white people interrupt the conversation (or will do it themselves) to keep the free exchanging of thoughts from happening.
If the officers are allowed to explain things from their side, understanding might occur from some protesters, and the Left can’t afford that to happen if they want their pathetic little “revolution” to succeed, so they keep it from happening in a multitude of ways.
In any case, moving on from my little theory (of which I have little evidence to outright prove), Officer Jackson went on to describe other kinds of experiences he has had in dealing with protestors, many of which are not quite as mild as conversations being interrupted.
“I had taken an explosive, I had been hit with a full beer can, a rock in my chest, frozen water bottle had hit me.” Clearly, he has seen and experienced a lot of hatred just because of his desire to protect and serve his community – a community which would be in total shambles without a police presence.
Thankfully, not everything he shared was quite so grim, as he also noted that, after a protest, he met two young black men who were cleaning up the street (the Left always leaves litter and garbage on the streets in their protests, almost as if the idea that they care for the environment is total crap). “I was so moved by that and so impressed,” Officer Jackson said, that he went over to them to shake their hands.
Then, Officer Jackson said something pretty noteworthy. When asked by an interviewer about “some of the hateful and racist things” he and other minority officers have had to endure during the protests, Jackson said: “It says something when you’re at a Black Lives Matter protest; you have more minorities on the police side than you have in a violent crowd. And you have white people screaming at black officers ‘you have the biggest nose I’ve ever seen.’ You hear these things and you go ‘Are these people, are they going to say something to this person?’ No.”
“And that’s just one example. Having people tell you what to do with your life, that you need to quit your job, that you’re hurting your community but they’re not even a part of the community. Once again, you as a privileged white person telling someone of color what to do with their life.” The interviewer suggested that such a thing was “hypocrisy” from the protesters and Jackson “absolutely” agreed.
I, for one, am not at all surprised to see Leftists being racist. Anti-white racism (which we’ll get to in a minute) is not only allowed, but celebrated and encouraged, if the incident with Nick Cannon is any indication, but even anti-black racism, if thrown at acceptable targets, is also not only allowed, but celebrated and encouraged.
Black police officers get called traitors to their race, just like black conservatives do. Hell, Joe freakin’ Biden said that if you are black and you are on the fence about whether you support him or Trump, “you ain’t black.” The jackass had the audacity to tell this to a BLACK radio show host, Charlamagne Tha God, who just ignored that statement basically or took no offense to it at all, probably because he’s a Leftist and he intends to vote for Biden anyway.
The Left will claim they aren’t racists while DM’ing black conservatives on Twitter and calling them the N-word. The Left will claim they support women and hate sexists while passing around rumors about Hope Hicks, a female Trump campaign staffer, sleeping around with multiple male Trump campaign staffers, making jokes about her being “passed around” like a hake sack in a college dorm room.
The same Left that kept black people slaves and FOUGHT to keep them as such today attack black people who leave the Democrat plantation of thought or who just want to serve their communities by being police officers.
The ONLY difference between today’s Left and the Left of the 19th and 20th centuries is that today’s Leftists are also anti-white. They are still every bit anti-black that they always have been, but they pretend to be pro-black and pro-minority. In reality, they see minorities as property that exists solely to get them elected.
Speaking of anti-white rhetoric, the Left definitely employs it against police officers. Unsurprisingly, Officer Jackson has also defended white police officers, knowing the sorts of things that they have to go through on the regular (things that snowflake Leftists would never dare to do once, let alone as a job).
Officer Jackson explains that, whenever someone uses the N-word against him, he has seen white officers jump in to defend him against such a person. Jackson also notes that he has witnessed these white officers try to save black residents in the city from dangerous situations:
“When you’re standing on the line and they’re getting called those names and they’re being accused of being racist when you’ve seen those officers helping people of color, getting blood on them trying to rescue someone who has been shot – gang violence, domestic violence – and you see them and they’re truly trying to help save someone’s life and they turn around and are called a racist by people that have never seen anything like that, that have never had to put themselves out there. It’s disgusting.”
The Left foolishly believes that entire police departments can be eliminated and we would only see improvement in this country in terms of racial equality and crime. They believe all you need to take care of and diffuse a potentially dangerous situation is an unarmed government worker trying to talk people out of being evil like they’re a cartoon character.
Reality, as always, is far different from what the Left perceives it to be. Cops aren’t intended for “tyranny” or “oppression.” They don’t exist to “keep black folk down.” They exist to protect and serve their communities, and statistically, many black communities need plenty of policing due to the violence present there (largely due to the Left’s economic policies that hurt people from the bottom-up).
I remember in my first year of high school in South Florida seeing police officers a lot of the time, not because the kids were overwhelmingly black (the school was located in the outskirts of Little Haiti), but because there were fights that happened just about every single day. And not small or silly fights that at most got people sent to the principal’s office either. I mean fights that were big and bad enough that cops needed to come in to separate and, in some cases, detain the kids and put them in handcuffs and in the back of the squad cars.
Again, the reason wasn’t because the kids were black or because the cops are racist, but because there were situations where the cops NEEDED to be there.
Just as cops are NEEDED in many places today, especially in the places run by Democrats (if the WaPo chart showing crime in a number of cities is any indication).
I pray for Officer Jackson’s safety (and the safety of the other officers as well) as the city of Portland is run by a dangerous and unstable clown.
“You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Racism courses through the blood of Leftists, so it is not at all surprising to see them do something like what I’m about to show you.
The National Museum of African-American History & Culture recently released an article, and more specifically, a graphic, that attributes positive things to “whiteness” and “white culture”, while insinuating that said positive things are actually bad because they are attributed to “whiteness” and “white culture.”
Let me show you what I mean.
In the graphic, they have several items which are generally positive things, but in the context that the museum is using them (and despite what the name might suggest, the graphic itself was created by a white woman), they are bad things because they apparently belong to white people and white culture alone (all-the-while they insist white people don’t have culture).
Let’s go over these items.
First, there’s the section of “Rugged Individualism”:
The Left, unsurprisingly, insists that individualism and personal independence are bad things, and because they are intolerant racists, they have to attribute these things to white people, even though ALL RACES strive for independence and individualism. You would think, having fought to keep their slaves, the Left would realize that even black people value independence and individualism, wanting to be self-reliant and financially independent.
Next, there’s the “Family Structure” section, which unsurprisingly, attacks the nuclear family (because the nuclear family is the basis for Western civilization and destroying it means destroying the West):
I already mentioned the point of attacking the nuclear family, so let’s move to the other points here. The reason for the husband being the breadwinner and head of household and the wife being the homemaker and subordinate to the husband is because that is the way God intended the family structure to be.
Ephesians 5:22-33 says: “Wives, submit to you own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
And 1 Timothy 5:8 says: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Due to this, and the fact that America is a Judeo-Christian country, the godly family structure should be that the husband is the head of the household, provides for his family, and the wife is the homemaker, submitting to her husband, and taking care of the children, that they might grow into faithful followers of Christ themselves.
These are not strictly “white” things, especially considering this is from a people who were IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The Left loves making the assertion that Jesus wasn’t white, so if He wasn’t white, wouldn’t it also follow that His followers, like Paul, weren’t exactly white either?
It simply makes no sense to attribute this as a “white” thing, considering people of all races do something similar.
And as far as the kids having their own bedrooms, I don’t know how that’s a white thing either. Some families are wealthy enough and small enough to be able to do that. Some are not as wealthy and have bigger families, so the kids have to share rooms. It’s not a white thing.
Next is, hilariously, attributing the “Scientific Method”, or the process by which we discover facts, as a white thing:
Is that to insinuate black people don’t think right? That black people, or Hispanics, or Asians, or Native Americans, or anyone who isn’t white doesn’t think objectively or rationally, going from a logical point A to point B?
And this is supposed to make me believe Leftists AREN’T the racist ones? How is an argument that ONLY white people think rationally an argument AGAINST white people and not against everyone else? I get that white liberals don’t think rationally, but that has more to do with political ideology than race.
“Cause and effect relationships” are strictly a white thing? You mean to tell me that white people see, let’s say, a ball falling on the ground, attribute that action to gravity as the cause, and other races think “AHH, BLACK MAGIC! THAT BALL WAS IN THE AIR AND THEN IT WAS ON THE GROUND! HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN THAT?!”? How do you come away making such a blatantly racist argument that only white people think rationally and think to yourself that you’ve stuck it to white people or are defending non-whites?
Anyway, moving on to the other non-sensical and racist bullcrap from these neo-Nazis.
The section of “Protestant Work Ethic.” There technically is a section before that about “History”, but all it said is that it’s “based on Northern European immigrants’ experience” in the U.S., has a “heavy” focus on the U.K. and has a primacy of Western and Judeo-Christian tradition, which are fairly obvious, so I can’t really make arguments against that. It’s just the history of the country, and while I get that the Left hates it, it has nothing really to do with whiteness.
The Left is coming at this one with a mentality of “structural racism”, but this still is nothing but loser talk. Of course hard work is the key to success. Ever head of a successful couch potato? Even if you foolishly believe that being a CEO takes zero effort to do, one has to work hard to just get to that point in the first place. No matter how long I wait, Microsoft isn’t going to name me their CEO if I’m just sitting on my couch (then again, I’m Latino and we don’t think rationally, apparently, so maybe it will happen!).
“Work before play.” I personally had to learn this one the hard way because yes, even in Latin American countries with THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION BEING LATINO, I have to do my work before I get to play, else I will have less time to finish my work, it gets rushed, and it gets sloppy. This isn’t a white thing. It’s a “not a total lazy piece of crap” thing.
The final point is also fairly obvious. You have to work hard to meet your goals, and while SOMETIMES, there are things that obstruct you despite your hard work (systemic racism isn’t a thing, so no, that’s not one of those obstructions), most of the time, it’s up to an individual to determine how successful they will be in doing anything. Matter of fact, in understanding this, plenty of people are conservatives because we KNOW that the government more often than not gets in people’s way. But no matter what, it’s not exactly a white thing.
Next, there is the “Status, Power & Authority” section. Like the last one, there technically was another one before this one, but I’m pressed for space and time in this article and want to prioritize this one. The previous one was similar to “History”, it was “Religion”, and basically the same points are made, though one of them was “no tolerance” for straying from a “single god concept”, and I will just say that there is just a single God, so it’s not a white thing. Muslims believe in a single god and are intolerant of deviation from that belief.
This more accurately describes white liberals than white people as a whole. To them, “your job is who you are” because when they have a doctorate or are, for example, epidemiologists, they define themselves as such and operate with smugness about it.
“Respect authority” is not just a white thing either. The Chinese Communist Party demands people respect their authority. Black parents demand their children respect their authority. Latino parents do the same (really, all parents do, but seemingly, white liberal parents seem to be the ones who will allow their children to walk all over them).
The final point is an obvious jab at capitalism, though let’s not pretend communists don’t do the same. The Obamas bought a house in Martha’s Vineyard as they, for more than a decade, have insisted that anthropogenic climate change would make such places completely uninhabitable for humans. They also love to flaunt their wealth, buying expensive suits and dresses. So this also isn’t a white thing specifically.
Next, I will combine two sections, “Future Orientation” and “Time” since they both say basically the same:
Right, because only white people have ever planned for the future. If that were the case, there would only have ever been one Christian Crusade because Muslims (and people in the Middle East in general) wouldn’t be ale to plan for the future (or think rationally, according to these people).
“Delayed gratification” isn’t a white thing either, it’s a smart thing. White liberals expect instant gratification for everything. All liberals do, really. It’s also a bit more of a millennial thing than anything else.
“Progress is always best.” Not in the commie context, but in the actual context of improvement. Apparently, non-whites think it’s best to sit in one spot forever and ever, never improving. Again, the Left fought to keep their slaves because the slaves wanted to be free. If black people didn’t believe that progress is always best and wanted to stay in one place forever without improvement, they wouldn’t have wanted freedom from the Left’s bondage.
“’Tomorrow will be better’”. Apparently, optimism is a white thing.
Now, as this article is pretty long and I still have a few points to go over, I will just mention one “point” in each subsequent section.
“Aesthetics”: “Man’s attractiveness based on economic status, power, intellect.”
I’ve said this plenty of times, but women find financially independent, strong and smart men attractive. It’s not a white thing.
“Holidays”: “Based on white history & male leaders.”
Yeah, white history holidays like Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
“Justice”: “Intent counts.”
Apparently not when it’s Hillary Clinton, you know, a white woman of immense privilege?
“Competition”: “Must always ‘do something’ about a situation.”
You mean to tell me that non-whites don’t “do something” about a situation? So the riots and the protests about George Floyd just didn’t happen because black people don’t “do something” about a situation?
“Communication”: “’The King’s English’ rules.”
Yeah, it’s so white to speak proper English. Actually, that section has another “point” I want to discuss: “Be polite.” Apparently, politeness and not being rude is strictly a white thing.
Black people and general non-white people are rude to others. How is this a statement in FAVOR of non-whites?
In any case, there are more hilarious “points” in the graphic, but this article is plenty long and you get the point.
Jim Crow is alive and well in the Democrat Party.
“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Something I have noted for a very long time now is that the Left is loud, but in the minority when it comes to almost all of the issues and things that they support. They believe, foolishly, that the vast majority of the country thinks like them and wants what they want, when reality couldn’t be further from that idea.
And today, we see more proof of that in a few different ways.
Following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, the radical Left has demanded that American cities across the country defund, dismantle and abolish their police departments, with no real replacements for those departments being discussed because it is a monumentally stupid idea and there is no replacing them with anything less deadly.
This wildly dangerous idea has led people to fear for their safety, believing the push to abolish police is real (which it is) and people are picturing a world in which there are no police to protect them (and no, most people do not view police as a direct threat to their lives. Most people view police as good with a few bad apples, not as completely bad).
So it’s not surprising at all to see the FBI reporting record gun sales and background checks happening.
According to the Washington Post: “The new coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest after the killing of George Floyd and the ensuing movement to defund police are bringing in new buyers worried about their personal safety, according to buyers, store owners and gun experts. In June, background checks for firearms were up 136%, compared to a year earlier… background checks in June for civilians seeking a license to carry were the highest since the FBI began conducting checks 20 years ago.”
According to the FBI, 3,931,607 background checks were processed last month, beating the previous record of 3,740,688, which was set back in March, when the country largely began to shut down and local governments in many places began to employ draconian measures.
The WaPo further reports that dealers estimate roughly 40% of sales being from first-time buyers, which is “an increase over the normal average of about a quarter”, and that many new buyers “are people who say they never thought they would own a firearm and were previously critical of those who did.”
A gun buyer told the WaPo: “I don’t want to ever shoot anybody ever. But if I had to duck and shoot back in self-defense, at least I’d have a chance.” This is a good mentality to have surrounding guns, that just about everyone who owns a gun doesn’t ever want to have to actually use it against someone else, but it’s better if we have a gun than if we don’t.
For law-abiding citizens who purchase guns, we do so with the hope that we never come across the situation where it becomes necessary to use the guns against an assailant or someone threatening our lives and the lives of our loved ones, but with the understanding that it’s better to prepare for such a situation and having a gun to defend ourselves with than being in such a situation and being totally defenseless.
Another first-time gun buyer was a man named John Kingdon, who is a registered Democrat and has advocated for gun control in the past. He told the WaPo he purchased a semi-automatic handgun a couple of months ago, admitting that “if I had a hard time getting police to respond to me when we weren’t in a pandemic, what about now?”
And that is another worry for plenty of people: that in the event where one’s life is threatened, police would not show up in time to help. The average response time for a 911 call is 10 minutes. It might not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but when one is faced with an extremely dangerous situation in which calling 911 is necessary, 10 minutes can feel like an absolute eternity, and a LOT of things can happen in such a relatively large amount of time.
For most people, it wouldn’t take robbers 10 minutes to go through their house, potentially finding them hiding in the closet or bathroom while on the phone with the police. And if they are found calling someone, the chances of death are considerably increased. Most robbers don’t necessarily intend to kill people, but many are at the very least willing and able to do so if they believe they have to in order to escape safely.
Of course, they would eventually be found and charged with murder, but robbers usually aren’t the smartest of individuals.
Regardless, the point remains that 10 minutes is far too long of a response time in normal circumstances, let alone during a pandemic and a political climate in which police are demonized and have plenty of reason for morale to be extremely low.
At any rate, it’s not just first-time gun buyers and record-setting gun purchases that are pushing back against Leftist narratives.
In New York City, members of the African-American community are asking for the NYPD to reinstate the recently-dismantled anti-crime units – units of police officers dressed in plainclothes who deal with getting illegal guns off the streets – following a massive rise in violent crime in the city.
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who is, himself, a former police officer, “became the second member of the African-American community to call on the NYPD to stop the violence by re-instituting the Anti-Crime Unit… This, as shootings for the week went up 277%, 49 compared to 13 in 2019. The number of victims is up 253%, 60 compared to 17 in 2019,” according to CBS New York.
Adams said: “I think that a total elimination is something we need to reevaluate. Right now, bad guys are saying if you don’t see a blue and white you can do whatever you want.”
Activist Tony Herbert told CBS New York that he agreed with Adams, saying: “we have a 1-year-old and the blood is on the hands of the mayor and the state Legislature.”
Violence is up massively in the city, and AOC tried to explain it away saying that it was because people were “scared to pay their rent” or because they just needed some “bread.”
That is an extremely asinine response to a very serious situation, though I can’t exactly expect AOC to be the voice of reason anywhere she goes. I doubt there even is a voice of reason inside her head.
But despite the extremely stupid “reasoning” from AOC, people want safety to return, not radical communist ideology that threatens their very safety with the abolition of the police.
People want to be safe, whether it comes in the form of purchasing a firearm for personal safety, or in the form of reinstating effective police units to battle crime running rampant in the city.
Unsurprisingly, Leftists are blaming guns and the 2nd Amendment for the violent crimes, even as the crimes themselves prove not only the value but the NECESSITY of the 2nd Amendment and guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens for the purposes of personal safety (and the crimes are only happening with this frequency due to the anti-cop rhetoric and the Democrat cities slashing cop funding).
You cannot have both a defunct police department and extreme gun control to the point of banning firearms completely. In such a city, a crime-lord would have more authority than the mayor himself, and no one would be safe apart from the people with the guns (and in such a city, only the bad guys would have the guns).
Everyone wants to be safe. The Left pushing for policies that run directly against people’s safety is not exactly a winning ticket.
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The New York Times is up there with CNN as some of the most vile and disgusting fake news that there is in this country. Truly, the only difference between the two is that CNN is also a cable “news” organization. Seeing how utterly fascistic and communistic the general narrative that is found in the NYT is, it’s not at all surprising to see someone who does not fully support such ideals be bullied and pushed out of the company.
Bari Weiss had been writing for the NYT for the past few years, following the election of Donald Trump, supposedly, according to her, because the Times was so wrong about who would be elected that it clearly needed a better understanding of the country that it covers.
Of course, she herself HATES Trump and has outright alleged he was sympathetic to neo-Nazis (which we shall see is rather hilarious in a moment) and would likely cancel anyone who is pro-Trump were she to have the power (she advocated for censoring Alex Jones), however, due to her not adhering in full with the communistic rhetoric of the company, at least in everything she wanted to write, Weiss has decided to resign from the NYT. In her resignation letter, Weiss utterly crushed the company by exposing precisely who they are: elitist, communist bullies who are wholly intolerant while preaching “tolerance”.
And yes, she is a massive hypocrite, but she is ripping the NYT, so let’s hear her out for a second, while still keeping in mind the fact that she is just as despicable.
In her resignation letter, Weiss lambasts the Times for being a paper more concerned with getting clicks from people on Twitter than actually being remotely objective or journalistically proper. “Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.”
In essence, Weiss is accusing the NYT of writing stories that will get them on Twitter’s “trending” list rather than writing stories of importance and significance to the vast majority of the country.
Later, Weiss takes note of some of the personal experiences she has had while working for the communist paper: “My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”
One, I told you that it was rather hilarious that she essentially called Trump a Nazi when she herself had been called that. Two, this is not at all unexpected behavior from communists. They HATE anyone who does not think like them and in this day and age when literal crime is hardly punished, such people feel comfortable showing their truly monstrous side. Communists are hateful bullies who somehow have deluded themselves into thinking they are angels doing God’s work. They are awful people, the embodiment of intolerance and hatred itself.
To me, it is EXTREMELY ironic that ANYONE at the New York Times would accuse someone just slightly right of Marx (and Weiss isn’t exactly Ronald Reagan) to be a Nazi when the publication itself has published the following article: “THE ART OF PROPAGANDA – By Adolf Hitler,” written June 22nd, 1941.
The New York Times published a piece by Adolf Hitler on the same day as Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi operation to invade the Soviet Union, and all-the-while the guy was killing Jews and other political opponents in concentration camps.
I don’t know what’s worse, the fact that the NYT chose to publish a piece by Adolf Hitler, or the following piece, written on November 21st, 1922:
Headline: “NEW POPULAR IDOL RISES IN BAVARIA; Hitler Credited With Extraordinary Powers of Swaying Crowds to His Will. FORMS GRAY-SHIRTED ARMY Armed With Blackjacks and Revolvers and Well Disciplined, They Obey Orders Implicitly. LEADER A REACTIONARY is Anti Red and Anti-Semitic, and Demands Strong Government for a United Germany.”
Yes, long headline, but this was a different time. At any rate, the piece later on said the following:
“But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and inline for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.”
We often times rip “experts” and supposed, anonymous “sources” from people who act in bad faith, but I don’t think anyone could top “our sources say that Hitler is not as anti-Semitic or violent as people think he is.”
This is on record for The New York Times, and it’s not like featuring egregious personalities is anything new for them. They have, just in the last decade, allowed for op-eds from Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin to be published on their paper. Hitler, Erdogan and Putin all enjoy or have enjoyed a great deal of liberty and even veneration from The New York Times.
So again, for anyone in the NYT to accuse anyone else of being a Nazi is EXTREMELY RICH (though for Weiss to play victim to such attacks is equally rich, considering she does the same to Trump).
Returning to Weiss’ resignation letter, she noted that “if a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”
These people claim to be “tolerant” and “inclusive” but have an outright allergic reaction to a Republican Senator writing that we should use the military to defeat the riots. They claim to be tolerant people while not tolerating anyone’s opinion should said opinion dissent from the pre-approved one. If you even remotely do not share much hatred for Trump, you are compared to Hitler himself (again, an extremely rich thing for anyone at the paper to do).
Anyone right of Karl Marx is considered a danger, a Nazi, and less than human. These people go around calling other people bigots when there are no bigger bigots than them.
At any rate, Weiss continued by excoriating the paper, taking note that Tom Cotton’s op-ed cost two people their jobs, all-the-while the paper celebrates an interview with a disgusting anti-Semite and conspiracy theorist who, to Weiss’s words, “believes in lizard Illuminati.”
Of course, considering the paper is willing to have an op-ed from Adolf Hitler, it’s not really so surprising that they have such a high regard for known anti-Semites.
Furthermore, Weiss writes: “The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its ‘diversity’; the doxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.”
Considering the history revisionism that the Times is involved in with its “1619 project”, it’s not at all surprising that these people live in the land of Looney Tunes, and even then, I would assume Buggs Bunny has more of a sense of reason than the people most often featured on that communist publication. Time and time again, Buggs Bunny showed considerably more wit than any of the people I have seen write for the Times, if I’m honest. I wouldn’t be surprised if he could trick them by flipping a sign that says “commie season.”
They are people who adamantly hate this country and spend their lives and careers excoriating it. That they compare America and Nazi Germany for their “caste system” is no surprise to someone who expects such nonsensical and offensive crap from human garbage like the NYT.
Anyway, Weiss concludes with a few things, such as a “set of rules” for writing for the NYT, including “Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.”
One does not have free speech when writing for the New York Times. They either speak the way the Times wants them to speak, whether willingly or not, or they can find themselves in an unemployment office.
This, my friends, is communism. Not that I needed to remind you of that.
In the end, Weiss quotes Adolph Ochs, former owner of the NYT, in a famous statement he made in 1896: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs wouldn’t even be allowed to write for the Times’ opinion piece nowadays with such a mentality, let alone be allowed to own the paper. Such an opinion runs contrary to the Left’s. The idea that people be allowed to have differing opinions and, worse yet, be allowed a platform through which to express such opinions is considered a threat to democracy itself in the minds of the politically insane.
Of course, Weiss herself has hypocritically gone against Ochs’ words in her trying to cancel Alex Jones, and I doubt she would be willing to have an honest debate with a pro-Trumper, but at least she gives us some ammo to use against the Times.
The NYT is garbage. Sane people are better off not reading it or contributing to it. While I do not exactly have much sympathy for Weiss, considering she herself has acted in that exact same manner, with the exact same attacks thrown at Trump and his supporters, I am at the very least glad that she attacked the NYT like she did on the way out.
Love it when the Left goes after its own.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I have often spoken to some extent or another about my own experiences having lived in socialist Argentina. I didn’t live there for too long (thank God), but I remember enough to know what it’s like to live under socialism, which is why I so adamantly and fervently speak out against the evil ideology.
Cuba is another country ravaged by communism and that is where the man I will speak about today, Maximo Alvarez, came from.
Cuba is straight-up communist and has been under a communist regime for the past 60 years. It wasn’t exactly great before, mind you, but communism has gripped the country and absolutely zero progress has been made in that country ever since, both in terms of politics and in terms of technology, etc. For crying out loud, the people still have to drive in the same cars our parents and grandparents drove back in the 1950s and 1960s!
Cuba is a communist country and the people that live in it, when they get the chance to get out, will adamantly speak against communism, having learned what it is, similarly to how people leaving Venezuela will often speak against socialism. Experience is everything, and once you experience communism, you understand how abhorrently oppressive it is.
The people clamoring for the ideology today are either people who have never actually experienced living under it, or are people who will benefit tremendously from it because they get to be the ones in total power. However, once people experience socialism/communism, their eyes are opened to the truth of how horrible it is and often times will want to do away with it, but cannot because communists disarm the populace long before they can rise up.
When the communist revolution in Cuba happened, according to Maximo Alvarez, a lot of people “swallowed the pill,” meaning that they believed each and every one of the promises made by Castro and the communists that were all lies.
But before we get to that, let me tell you some of what Alvarez shared about himself in this speech. During the round table discussion, Alvarez noted that in 1961, as a 13-year-old, Alvarez arrived to the States by himself because his parents, particularly his father, wanted a better life for him and his brother (who had been sent to Spain some time earlier than Alvarez).
In his speech, Alvarez generally spoke about how great this country is, noting that “everybody in the world wants to come over here. Nobody’s ever forced to come over here. We come over here, in my case because my parents chose that I would not be indoctrinated by the communist country, by the totalitarian country, by the totalitarian regime. They don’t educate children.”
And he is absolutely correct. Those who come here come here because they WANT to come here. People CHOOSE to come to the States because they want a better life for themselves. This is the only place in the world that can provide that for them.
And with regards to the communists indoctrinating children, that is also correct. For crying out loud, we are seeing it even here, in college campuses! Remember, young people tend to be rather patriotic until they go off to college, at which point the percentage of patriotic young people practically falls off a cliff. Our universities are not places of higher education, but rather, higher indoctrination of Marxist ideology.
At any rate, Alvarez continued, noting that Castro made plenty of promises to people, and even tried hiding the fact that he was a communist, until he actually got to power. “I remember vividly all the promises that a guy named Castro gave, and how 99% of the people swallowed the pill. It took many years later, after I read somebody named Saul Alinksy, that I realized that all those people were nothing but useful idiots.”
Alinsky, for those who don’t know, was an American communist famous for quotes such as: “Control healthcare and you control the people,” and “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”
Communism is not a logical or rational ideology. It is an evil ideology that promises paradise on earth, and in doing so, grip the hearts of plenty of people (because who wouldn’t want to live in paradise, especially if you don’t believe in Heaven?) and through emotions, uses such idiotic people to achieve its ends. The people leading such communist revolutions (and there always has to be a revolution for it to happen) are the ones who benefit, but particularly the main guy who leads the revolution.
Today, we see such useful idiots like people supporting BLM, Antifa, etc. and even the people belonging to those groups themselves. The useful idiots will destroy statues, attack people verbally and/or physically, and demand systemic change away from capitalism, which they foolishly view as evil, and towards communism, which they foolishly view as good. When the dust settles and the system is actually changed to communism, however, such useful idiots are usually the first ones to be eliminated.
Alvarez continued by pointing out that Castro fooled people into believing he wasn’t actually a communist by posing as a Catholic (does that not remind you of a certain New York governor, a certain Speaker of the House and a certain Senator from Vermont, who uses Judaism to hide his communism?) and only revealed his communism once he was in power.
“I remember Castro while in the mountains being interviewed and asked if he was a communist. He went crazy. ‘How dare you’, he says… [a] Roman Catholic. Educated by the Jesuits, he was. ‘How dare you! We even have a priest in the mountains.’”
Often times, communists hide the fact that they are communists until they feel that it’s not necessary to do so any longer.
Much of this, basically all of it, we are seeing happen in this country. The useful idiots, the empty promises of “free education”, “free healthcare”, “free land”, the communists hiding that they are communists, etc.
This is why he was so adamant about speaking out on this, because he is seeing the same thing happen here as he saw in Cuba in the 1950s and 60s.
“My God, no freedom. But [Castro] never said that until after he was in power, got rid of all the police, got rid of all the military – been there for the last 60 years and counting. And he destroyed each and every one who helped him. The Catholic church, everybody.”
One of the many interesting things he said in his speech was his description of his father, who was very smart, fled Spain when it was going through its own communist revolution, went to Cuba and could tell right away that Castro was a communist, even when he was pretending he wasn’t.
There were two aspects that stood out to me about how Maximo described his father. One was that the guy could have enjoyed the fruits of his labor, having owned golf courses, but gave it up to afford his family a better life in a better place that wouldn’t be destroyed by communism. Maximo notes that Trump is “exactly the same,” a guy who had it made, could have enjoyed the fruits of his labor, but decided to sacrifice it for something bigger than himself.
And this is an aspect a lot of people I feel do not appreciate about Trump. They will say that he is an egomaniac, selfish, narcissist, etc., but his actions do not reflect such a profile. The guy, like I said, had it made. His family was set for as long as they had money and a means to earn more of it. Generations of Trumps would have been just fine, financially, by Donald Trump not running for President and just remaining a real estate mogul, owning multiple high-end buildings, golf courses, etc. and doing whatever else he could to make more money.
He had ZERO obligation to do any of the things he has been doing for the past four years. He had no obligation at all to run for POTUS. But he chose to forsake such a life of extreme luxury that even escapes a president in order to do something for the country that he loves. He wanted to be president, not in order to gain anything, because in reality, he only stands to lose by doing so, but in order to Make America Great Again.
Choosing to run for president has all but ruined everything Trump had been building for his whole life. He is loved by many, yes, but he is also hated by many, when before, that wasn’t the case. He was loved both by Democrats, having donated to them and championed their causes (to some extent, particularly as they were not openly as radical back then as they are now) and loved by Republicans, having also donated to some of them and being the embodiment of a Republican’s dream in this country.
In choosing to become president, he has gotten roughly half the country to hate him, believing that he is a racist and all these other things that he is definitely not, and has jeopardized his family’s ability to make money by the vitriol that communists have for his very name and brand, and he, himself, only loses money by being president, not taking a salary for his work.
If there ever was anyone who did not have to be president and only stood to lose by becoming president, it’s Donald Trump, and yet, he forsook that life of luxury just to be able to save a country he loved and he viewed as worth saving. In his position, I don’t know if I would have done the same. Not to say I don’t love this country, but that is to say that I don’t know or think I would have made so many sacrifices for the mere chance of saving the country. Keep in mind, his reputation was being tarnished just by him RUNNING for office, let alone obtaining it. Had he lost, he likely would be ruined by now, and once he leaves office, the Left will most likely come after him with everything they’ve got and he will no longer have a presidential immunity to being indicted.
Maximo Alvarez loves Trump because that aspect is a lot like his father: someone willing to take great chance, at their own peril, for something bigger than themselves.
The other thing that Alvarez noted about his father that also stood out to me was something he once told to Maximo: “Don’t lose this place because you’re never going to be as lucky as me. Because if you lose this place, you have no place to go.”
That, to me, struck me as extremely Reagan-esque because those words are almost verbatim what Reagan once said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
Maximo’s father likely loved Reagan, as Maximo loves Trump. The two presidents are people who value this country for its freedoms and know that we must fight to preserve them. Granted, I think Trump mostly saw America in economic shambles and wanted to make it great again based on that, but I think Trump’s 2020 message is, or at least, it should be, about saving America not from economic turbulence but from the ideological evil that is communism.
The Left has made itself known to all about who they are. They want communism and they want it now. They will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Trump, I think, understands that he is a buffer for America against such communism. He stands practically all alone against communism and I think he needs to accentuate that fact in his campaigning.
Alvarez knows what it’s like to live under communism and is seeing Americans spewing the same bullcrap that communists spewed in Cuba. My own family also mentions that the things people like Bernie Sanders and other communists are promising were promises that were made to Argentinians and are promises that are still being made to them, despite the fact that socialism is the law of the land.
What we are seeing in America today is what people living in socialism and communism saw decades prior. We know what socialism and communism is and does. It’s a regressive, highly oppressive regime that destroys people’s souls, jails them for being out of line with the regime’s beliefs, and is overall a cancer on this earth. And we are seeing useful idiots on TikTok, Twitter, other social media and in real life altogether espousing beliefs they know nothing about, believing communism lifts people up when in reality, it brings people down.
America must never be allowed to fall to communism, because if it does, there is no place else on earth to go to. I just hope people realize how important our freedom is before it is taken away from us.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
To paraphrase Tucker Carlson, you have to be extremely stupid to work at CNN because you will never stray from the topic that is handed to you. You never have to think on your own, you just have to repeat what is on the teleprompter or your notes, and when not speaking, mindlessly nod at whatever someone else said even if what someone said is monumentally stupid, incoherent, illogical or even extremely bigoted.
The dumbest man on news, working alongside Fredo Cuomo, let some of his idiocy shown recently when talking about the Founding Fathers and, more specifically, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In a discussion with the man who has as many IQ points as he does brothers, Don Lemon criticized the Founding Fathers, “So why are we deifying the founders of this country, many of whom owned slaves, and in the Constitution – the original one – they didn’t want, they put slavery in there, that slavery should be abolished because it was the way the king wanted. And then the Congress said, ‘No way!’”
The man’s stupidity knows no bounds, as he unwittingly praised the Founders whom he is trying to crap all over (and I’ll get to that in a brief moment).
Yes, many of them owned slaves because that was a violent and disturbing time in history when people owned other people. This has been the history of humanity for millennia and the idea that people shouldn’t own others is relatively new. White people used to own black people. Black people also used to own black people, both in Africa, with the tribes that fought and enslaved other tribes, and in the States, with black people legally owning other black people. Native Americans owned other Native Americans, at least, the ones that chose to enslave the tribes they conquered. Often times, tribes like the Comanche would simply choose to slaughter the tribes they defeated.
The Jews used to be slaves in Egypt and Babylon. Romans had slaves. Europeans would enslave one another when possible, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Slavery has been a part of humanity’s history for ages and is not something that has strictly applied to black people (especially considering there were black people back then who were either never slaves or outright owned other people). And let’s not ignore the fact that slavery is still a thing in this day and age, specifically in the Middle East.
Now, does this justify the horror that is slavery? Of course not. But it does put necessary context in a discussion that the Left chooses to not put any into just to get a chance at delegitimizing the United States. These people want Americans to believe that slavery was strictly an American thing, created by the U.S. and every other country in the history of the world was more “civilized” and “progressive” while the U.S. was anything but.
Ironically, Lemon PRAISED the Founders by noting that they wanted to abolish slavery in the first iteration of the Constitution. If these people were senseless barbarians who saw no issue with owning people, why would they try to put the abolishment of slavery into the original Constitution? Never mind why it was not actually put into it (the South wanted to keep their slaves, the North didn’t want that, but prioritized keeping the Union together and kicked the can of slavery down the road, though made provisions for the eventual abolishment of slavery), the fact that they DID WANT TO put it in there shows that they were not demons who wanted perpetual slavery.
At any rate, the dumbest man on news went on to further show why he has earned the moniker from President Trump by saying: “Here’s the thing: Jesus Christ – if that’s who you believe in, Jesus Christ – admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this earth.”
On who’s admission, Don? Yours? Because it’s certainly not to Jesus’ own admission or God’s own admission or any of the human authors of the Bible’s admission.
Jesus Christ was perfect, otherwise He would not have been an adequate sacrifice for the sins of those whom God has called. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says: “God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Hebrews 7:25-26 says: “Therefore He is able to save completely those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest truly befits us – One who is holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”
John 7:17-18 says: “If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether My teaching is from God or whether I speak on My own. He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is a man of truth; in Him there is no falsehood.”
Luke 1:35 says: “The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’”
The One who is holy cannot be imperfect. Not that I expect the dumbest man on news to understand this. Furthermore, it’s not even about how dumb or smart he is (though he is definitely not the latter). Intelligence matching that of Albert Einstein is not required in order to understand that Jesus Christ is perfect, and was perfect while He was walking on the Earth. What is required is faith and at least a basic level of understanding of the Christian tenets. It is made abundantly clear, day in and day out, fake news story after fake news story, that Don Lemon possesses neither of those requirements.
Don Lemon is not a Christian, so it’s not exactly a surprise that he would know nothing of the Lord. He has no excuse, of course, given the prevalence of evidence of God’s existence, Christ’s divinity and holiness, and availability of the Bible, both in book form and via the internet, but still not surprising that he would not know who the Lord is, even to this level.
The guy is a charlatan and is employed by the Charlatan News Network. That Chris Cuomo, who is supposedly Catholic, mindlessly nodded along (like I said was a requirement for working for CNN if you weren’t the one speaking), is also not surprising because he is every bit the charlatan that Don Lemon is, that his genocidal governor brother is, that Nancy Pelosi is, etc. They are not true Christians in the least.
Don Lemon is like the sort of person spoken of in 1 John, specifically chapter 2, verses 22 and 23: “And who is a liar? Anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”
Denying the perfection of Christ is denying the holiness of Christ, as the two are inseparable. Denying the holiness of Christ is denying the deity of Christ. Denying the deity of Christ is denying the deity of God. Denying the Son is denying the Father. That is precisely what Don Lemon (and Fredo) is doing, of which he should repent immediately, knowing that Jesus said, in Matthew 10:33: “But whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
Denying the Son is not the path to salvation; in fact, it’s literally going the opposite direction. Do I think Don Lemon is seeking to be saved? No, otherwise, he likely would have been, because if he was seeking to be saved, he would have been called to the Lord. But regardless of whether or not Lemon is seeking to be saved, or believes he must be saved from the punishment of his sins, what he did was deny the Son, which is to deny the Father.
Claiming Jesus was not perfect is extremely ignorant and shows the state of his soul. It also shows the state of Fredo’s soul (and the emptiness of his head) that he mindlessly nodded along as Lemon publicly rejected Christ on live TV.
I pray that these two repent of their abhorrent sin and come to the Lord in repentance and submission.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Either everyone has freedom of speech, or no one does. That is what I believe, and considering that there is such a thing as cancel culture in this day and age, I am of the belief that it should be used against the very people that created it. I wish to eradicate cancel culture by using it against the Left, the biggest users of it. However, there are plenty of people who simply wish to advocate for free speech (I do too, don’t misunderstand) and have signed a letter denouncing cancel culture altogether.
Harper’s Magazine issued a letter about justice and open debate. While they do not exactly hold a conservative view (they outright call Trump a “real threat to democracy” and believe censorship is a right-wing invention “spreading more widely in [Left-wing] culture”), they do hold what can be considered a truly liberal view: we have the liberty to disagree with one another.
Now, I, for one, believe that liberals have always been communists in disguise, but there are people out there who hold the CONSERVATIVE view that we should be able to disagree with one another and believe it to be a more liberal view because “liberty” is the root word for the term.
Regardless of the history of the term, how it is used, or what people believe it really means, the point remains that there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who will disagree in terms of politics but agree that we should have the freedom to disagree with one another without our entire livelihoods being upended as a result of holding a dissenting opinion (and usually, such opinions dissent from the Leftist, communist opinion).
Over 150 people signed the letter, all agreeing that we have the right to free speech and we should not be canceled for disagreement, including people like Anne Applebaum, Noam Chomsky, David Frum, Katie Herzog, J. K. Rowling, Jennifer Finney Boylan, Jesse Singal and Matthew Yglesias, to name a few.
Plenty of people with differing views on differing things, all coming to agreement that cancel culture is dangerous and that we should have the ability to speak our minds without being threatened with losing our jobs or actually losing our jobs.
Unsurprisingly, cancel culture went after these people, and it has already claimed three victims: Kerri K. Greenidge, who had originally signed the letter but eventually tweeted “I do not endorse this Harper's letter” (an absolute lie, seeing as she had signed it), an anonymous person who claimed that “she did not know who all the other signatories were” and Jennifer Finney Boylan, who also said she did not know who the other signatories were and apologized for having signed the letter.
This action, inadvertently, proves the letter’s precise point. These people, for holding a dissenting thought that we should be ALLOWED to hold a dissenting thought, were punished and threatened with their livelihoods.
And we all know that if any of them crumble, as some have, many more will follow because that is how the cancel culture works: they get one, they know what works and will use it against more and more people. And the more and more people who succumb to it, the more influential this cancel culture is. That is the ONLY reason we are in the situation we are in. Cancel culture is this prevalent because people have ALLOWED IT to be.
Whenever someone is even remotely accused of racism or holding “wrong-think”, that person is forced to apologize like they just killed the Pope. Tweets from a decade ago, comments from long ago, are resurfaced and the targets are forced to apologize. It’s so bad, people have tried to get John Wayne canceled even though he’s been dead for ages.
The minute someone expresses even a semblance of dissenting thought, they are forced to kneel before General Mob (pun intended). Even if they try to adhere to the radical Left’s “correct” and “allowed” speech codes, they can be forced to apologize for “excluding” a group of people or another. Even if you are the most hardcore Leftist today, in the span of just a few years, the things you said, even if they were “progressive” today, could be considered “dangerous” and “ignorant” and you could be forced to apologize.
No one at all is safe from cancel culture. Just this week, I saw people trying to cancel communist FRIDA KHALO for “appropriating” indigenous culture in Mexico. Even the communists of the past aren’t safe from the cancel culture. Of course, I doubt the communists who were in power, such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao Zedong, would be canceled because they brought forth the same communism that these people clamor for, but if done right, cancel culture can be used against them too.
At any rate, while I obviously do not agree with everything the letter itself said, or with everyone who signed the letter, I do agree that people should be free to speak their mind without fear of cancelation by an outraged mob that seeks the blood of the innocent.
I want cancel culture to be destroyed altogether and for liberty to prevail, but while it exists as a weapon against conservatives (the primary targets), I will use it every bit the same way the Left uses it.
As I once told someone on Twitter on this subject, no duel was ever won by the guy who refused to shoot out of “principle”. Cancel culture is an abomination and should cease to exist, but while it does exist and is used against us, I say we use these weapons against the Left.
It ain’t pretty, that’s for sure, but then again, no war is, and there is no doubt in my mind that we are in the midst of a cultural war.
“If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
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...