Years from now, I would hope, people will be able to take a look back at how numerous countries handled the Chinese coronavirus pandemic and come to the understanding that we allowed fear and panic to set in and drive our decisions in the best case, and allowed closeted tyrants to be free to rein in as much power as they could at worst. Hopefully, understanding this, they will come to know that they should not repeat the mistakes of the past and erode their own rights and liberties in exchange for a little bit of false safety.
 
Likewise, I would hope that they would allow for actual science to be the main driver of their decisions, not bad-faith “experts” who have plenty to gain from the stripping of people’s freedoms.
 
Because the people of today have largely been led to be as fearful of the Chinese coronavirus as they are about things like cancer, AIDS, etc., and treat it as though it were in any way similar to those diseases.
 
A recent Gallup survey showcased just how misinformed Americans are about the dangers of the Chinese coronavirus, and how many people who have the virus require hospitalization.
 
“Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%,” the authors of the study said. “Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization. If that were true, the millions of resulting patients would have overwhelmed hospitals throughout the pandemic.”
 
By political demographics, we see completely unsurprising results.
 
10% of Democrats, 26% of Republicans and 20% of Independents were correct when they said between 1 and 5% of COVID patients needed to be hospitalized. But the majority of all, including even Republicans, vastly overestimated the number. 41% of Democrats, 28% of Republicans and 35% of Independents all answered that 50% or more of Chinese coronavirus patients must be hospitalized.
 
Like the authors of the study said, were that to be the case, the hospitals would have long been overwhelmed with Chinese coronavirus patients. However, we never even came close to that in any state, even the ones that were worst off.
 
If you remember, President Trump sent a Navy hospital ship to New York back when that was the epicenter of the pandemic, and it was hardly even used. Cuomo whined and moaned about the “lack” of support Trump gave them, but he never even used the hospital ship to treat people in it. That wouldn’t have been the case if hospitals had been overwhelmed.
 
The reason for this overestimation of how bad the Chinese coronavirus is is quite easy to pinpoint: the fake news media created an environment of fear and panic.
 
According to an Ivy League-led study (so not exactly a right-leaning one), 91% of U.S. stories in 2020 were negative, compared to just 54% in non-U.S. media, even when there were positive developments surrounding the virus, such as fewer positive cases, deaths, and hospitalizations.
 
“The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials,” said the study. “Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumber stories of decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 even during periods when new cases are declining.”
 
And while one can’t exactly expect the fake news media to be cheerful during a pandemic, there is a clear disconnect between the percentage of negative stories shared by the American media (91% negative) and the media outside the U.S. (54%). It’s not like things were just that much worse in America than in other places. Italy was very rattled early on, and many European countries “had” to go through multiple lockdowns (I put quotations around “had” because they absolutely did not need to do that. If one lockdown didn’t work, multiple ones logically wouldn’t either).
 
Even though the U.S. has the most reported cases of the Chinese coronavirus (remember, China stopped counting back in March of last year), the virus was never bad enough that it would warrant constantly negative news stories, even while there were positive developments.
 
The reason as to why the news were so consistently negative is clear: the fake news media had an agenda to get rid of President Trump. They took the opportunity a pandemic gave them and ran with it, claiming negative thing after negative thing and how Trump was just handling it so, so poorly, blah, blah, blah.
 
The reality is that he was ahead of everyone in handling the virus. Even while he was in the midst of the illegitimate and unconstitutional impeachment trial (the first one, that is), he was looking to get ahead in handling the virus by taking early action. Action, by the way, which was even praised by one of the Left’s emperor gods, Dr. Anthony Fauci, as having saved countless lives.
 
But none of that would matter to a fake news media which abhorred President Trump and had no qualms about showing their feelings. Constantly delivering negative news during the pandemic, particularly as it pertained to Trump’s handling of the virus, during a time when people were afraid and easily abused to the point where they would abandon their freedoms in exchange for a little temporary (and as it would turn out, fake) safety and would trust the word of even the most notorious of liars, would be a big help to the Left in defeating President Trump.
 
Of course, as we know, it wasn’t the negative news stories that allowed for the Left to get rid of Trump. It was the mail-in ballots and general election rigging that allowed them to do it, but such an opportunity was at least helped by the fear and panic the fake news media was setting with their negative coverage. It got a lot of people who would otherwise have voted in person to vote by mail, and if you remember, Trump was far ahead of Biden until they started counting the easily falsifiable mail-in ballots.
 
But regardless of what actually got the Left to get rid of Trump, there is no denying the reason the news was so constantly negative was to make Trump as unpopular as they possibly could make him. It didn’t work, of course, but the attempt was still made.
 
And so, they did their best to instill within the American people a great fear and panic which would, among other things like hopefully having gotten rid of Trump, also allow for the communist tyrants to play Stalin for as long as they could, imprisoning anyone who would dare to stand against them and their blatant unconstitutional power-grab.
 
It is entirely unsurprising that 41% of Democrats, who are most easily fooled by the fake news media, believe that 50% of those with the Chinese coronavirus require hospitalization. Republicans and Independents were, also unsurprisingly, a bit more educated on the facts, though still a surprisingly decent number of them still believed that 50% required hospitalization.
 
In any case, let future generations judge the actions of those who went along with the fear and panic harshly, learning from the mistakes of their ancestors to never, EVER, allow for tyrants and liars-for-profit to deceive us into giving up our rights and freedoms in exchange for the promise of safety that never even comes.
 
I’ve shared this quote before in the past, but I believe it is adequate to repeat it here: Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
 
Allow for me to add on to that quote with the reality of what happens to those who do:
 
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety and will be deprived of both.
 
2 Corinthians 3:17
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”

We once again are faced with a horrific judge who ought to be in prison, not be sending people to prison, and interestingly enough, it is someone we have previously talked about.
 
If you’ve been a long-time reader of ours, that picture above might look familiar. Back in April of 2017, the Left was looking for any and all kinds of ways to stop President Trump and his legal executive orders which would harm the Left’s causes. Among such EO’s was an order to stop the funding of sanctuary cities which illegally protected illegal immigrants from deportation.
 
The judge in the picture above is Judge William H. Orrick, the judge who, back in April, blocked President Trump’s sanctuary city executive order.
 
Well, we now have another story about him, though completely unrelated from that April 2017 article.
 
In July of 2015, Judge Orrick reportedly “issued a restraining order blocking the release of undercover videos at the National Abortion Federation (NAF) convention showing Planned Parenthood employees negotiating the sale of aborted fetus body parts,” according to The Federalist.
 
Nearly six years later and those videos, making up over 200 hours of footage, have still not been released to the public, though that may not be the case for long.
 
Ever since the first undercover footage was released back in 2015 (remember the PP executive who said “I want a Lamborghini” in exchange for baby body parts? That footage), The Center for Medical Progress and its founder, David Daleiden, have been entrenched in legal battles with both the NAF and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). But to the luck of the killers-for-profit, the presiding judge was none other than William Orrick.
 
Orrick, by the way, is an Obama-appointed judge who was a big donor to Obama’s presidential campaign and he and his wife are big pro-abortion advocates, with both of them being longtime donors to San Francisco’s Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC), which ought to be called anything other than something related to Christianity as Orrick was a board member of this organization and helped fund and open a Planned Parenthood clinic on its site. According to The Federalist, that clinic “sold fetal tissue to StemExpress, a for-profit wholesaler exposed by CMP’s videos and reporting.”
 
Orrick’s wife is also a major abortion advocate, who reportedly has “liked” pro-abortion groups on Facebook and posts which called CMP and Daleiden’s videos “domestic terrorism.”
 
So the legal serial killer organizations have the judge in their back-pocket, which is why there has been so little justice surrounding the release of the hundreds of hours of footage depicting people in those organizations illegally profiting off of the tissue of their child victims.
 
However, there is good news: There are two cases involved here which put Orrick in a lose-lose position.
 
The first case is actually a $16 million lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against Daleiden and CMP, which recently was appealed and filed to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals by Daleiden to be reversed on the grounds that his First Amendment rights are being infringed. Orrick was the one who ruled that Daleiden’s 1A rights were not being infringed, so he decided to appeal it to the Ninth. At any rate, this case filed by PP against Daleiden is a suit alleging Daleiden of having committed fraud, trespassing, unlawful recording and breach of contract. However, and this is key, they did not sue him for defamation.
 
The reason for having not sued Daleiden for defamation is so that the content of the video did not have to be the focus of the case. So any testimony about what they did wrong would be deemed irrelevant by the judge, which ended up happening. They can’t fight against an expert testimony about their wrongdoing even if Orrick himself argues nothing criminal or wrong occurred, so they would rather sue Daleiden for technical stuff to avoid trouble for themselves. It was actually fairly strategic.
 
The NAF, however, was not quite as strategic, having agreed to drop most of their claims against Daleiden, also having sued him for those videos, “asking only for a summary judgment on its breach of contract claim and seeking a permanent ban on the videos solely because of the way it will harm their reputation,” according to The Federalist. The NAF is still arguing in their suit that the content of the videos is false and would be harmful, or defamatory, to their organization and reputation.
 
This was the major mistake made by the baby killers, as this is what helps put Orrick in a lose-lose situation.
 
I will get to why in just a moment, I just have to provide one more piece of context.
 
You see, back in 2016, when Orrick ruled that Daleiden’s 1A rights were not being infringed, or at least that releasing the videos would jeopardize the safety of the abortion workers (NAF’s members specifically) so that was more important than Daleiden’s 1A rights, he had reviewed both transcripts and recordings of the videos and determined that he had found “no evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing.”
 
According to his own non-expert analysis of the videos, he does not believe there was criminal wrongdoing in those videos. However, one of CMP’s witnesses claims differently.
 
Dr. Forrest Smith is said CMP witness. Smith is an OB-GYN in California who horrifically has said that he has performed over 50,000 abortions. While the guy has the blood of 50,000 people on his hands and he should be arrested and executed for genocide, he is actually a helpful witness for CMP and Daleiden, as he is an expert on the field, disgusting as that reality is.
 
In 2019, Smith took the witness stand at the trial of PPFA’s case against Daleiden and testified that “there’s no question” that some of the induced abortions on the videos “were live births.” He also testified that the PP employees violated other medical standards of practice.
 
As this was in the PPFA case which did not sue on defamation, Orrick didn’t allow Smith’s testimony, deeming it unnecessary, though his expert report was submitted but never used.
 
However, Daleiden and CMP submitted another extensive report from Smith in the NAF case, meaning that Orrick can’t block Smith’s testimony at least on the same grounds as the PPFA case because Smith’s testimony is necessary for the case of defamation.
 
This is why the NAF made a mistake in suing for defamation: The expert testimony alleges wrongdoing even if the judge, a non-expert, claims otherwise. And this is why that puts Orrick in a lose-lose situation: Either Orrick claims that he knows better than the expert on this matter, thereby further showing he is on the side of Planned Parenthood and making it easier to get him removed from the case, or he rules justly and accordingly, which pits him against Planned Parenthood and the Left.
 
In all likelihood, he will choose the former, as that seems to be his best option for not angering his Leftist masters, but it would potentially ruin PP’s case against Daleiden, who could then release the footage unrestrained.
 
And if Orrick rules justly, it will possibly also lead to the release of the footage anyway, as Peter Breen, Daleiden’s defense attorney, argued during a Zoom hearing in February that the videos should be made available to police or lawmakers investigating PP as well as to the public, arguing that it’s a matter of “public interest,” which it certainly is.
 
Breen said: “There’s nothing inconsistent with the court saying ‘I don’t see it but others do’ and certainly the court would not want to stand in the posture of a censor over something that has First Amendment value and public interest value.”
 
Unfortunately, while this would normally be quite the trap for a corrupt judge, the reality is that the justice system is broken in this country and the judge could, ultimately, simply disregard the consequences of being blatantly on Planned Parenthood’s side. He’s an Obama-appointed judge and has previously been a hero to the Left regarding that block of Trump’s executive order. Who knows what his ultimate decision will be and who knows how legal or illegal it ultimately will be?
 
Furthermore, even if he is forcibly removed from this case, who’s to say that he would be replaced by someone who will actually rule fairly and impartially? This is Commiefornia, after all. Hardly any judge in that state is against abortion or Planned Parenthood and hardly any judge would rule against them.
 
Serious actual justice reform is necessary so as to keep these baby killers not only from being able to legally operate but, at the very least, from being able to financially or ideologically bribe the judges presiding over their cases.
 
If even an expert in the field of abortion whom has himself taken the lives of over 50,000 innocents is testifying, under oath, that Planned Parenthood broke all sorts of laws, let alone ethics, I see little reason to not believe his testimony. These people should go to prison for a long time and it is an abortion of justice for the judge to be on their side so blatantly.
 
I hope and pray that these evil bastards will face the justice that they deserve.
 
Proverbs 17:15
“He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”

Earlier this week, the city of Boulder, Colorado was struck by a heinous shooting which left 10 people dead, with the suspect being shot in the leg and arrested at the scene.
 
Practically as soon as reports of the shooting came out, Leftists dove headfirst into blaming white people and specifically “white supremacy”, even though hardly anything about the shooting had been known. This is likely because just last week, there was a shooting in Atlanta, Georgia which was perpetrated by a sex-addicted white male against Asian people (though the shooter claims he was not setting out to specifically kill Asians). The Left picked up that story and ran with “white supremacy” claims in a desperate and fruitless effort to divorce themselves from their own history of being white supremacists.
 
Similarly, they began making all sorts of assumptions relating to this shooting in Colorado.
 
They especially pushed those assumptions when reports were released that the suspect had been apprehended at the scene, which the Left took to mean was a practical confirmation of the shooter being white because in Leftist looney world, white people get preferential treatment even when committing heinous crimes and that only white people get arrested after performing a shooting, while members of other races get shot at and killed at the scene.
 
But as it turned out, the shooter wasn’t white; he was actually Muslim and born in Syria, though has lived in the United States for most of his life.
 
Law enforcement reportedly told Laura Loomer that the guy had sworn allegiance to ISIS and that the Biden administration reportedly gave “orders to keep it under wraps to avoid conversation in the media about Islamic terrorism and reversal of Trump’s travel ban, which the terrorist was opposed to,” Loomer revealed on her Telegram channel.
 
She is so far the only source to claim this, so it is unknown if it is true, but going by Leftist rules of assigning motive when motive is unknown, why would there be a problem with labeling the guy a terrorist?
 
To begin with, the guy was a Leftist himself and blamed “racism” for Trump’s 2016 election victory. He also reportedly bullied other students while in high school, believing that they had been racist to him and would reportedly threaten them with filing hate crime charges against them to coerce them into silence, according to National File.
 
All the victims of the shooting were also white and there are reports that he was targeting Christians and Trump supporters, so one could just as easily slap him with the label of domestic Islamic terrorist as the Left tried to do with the Atlanta shooter.
 
But as soon as it was revealed that the shooter wasn’t white but was, in fact, a Muslim and possible ISIS-sympathizing terrorist, the Left’s narrative shifted away from “this is a white domestic terrorist” to “this is the fault of white people for wanting to keep their guns” even though law-abiding citizens will, by definition, not do this kind of crap.
 
Republican strategist Caleb Hull had actually compiled a list of statements and claims from Leftists about the identity of the shooter before it was revealed he was Muslim, with all of them going with the assumption that it was just an “angry white man” who “hates women” and whatever else.
 
Once it was revealed that he was Muslim, some shifted to just “mourning” the victims of the shooting whom they had just politically exploited and would have continued to politically exploit had the shooter actually been white.
 
Amy Siskind, far-Left nutjob activist, tweeted before learning the guy was Muslim: “The shooter is was [sic] taken into custody. In other words it was almost certainly a white man (again). If he were Black or Brown he would be dead.”
 
But after learning the guy was Muslim, Siskind tweeted the following: “Let’s mourn the victims, but not glorify the killer with the attention of having his name widely known.”
 
Generally, I would agree with that last statement, which is why I won’t be sharing his name, but let’s not pretend that the ONLY reason she is saying this is because the shooter has an Arab name. She wants people to not blame the death cult of Islam following the revelation that the shooter is a Muslim with an Arab name and was born in Syria, and instead implores that we simply “mourn the victims” whom she was politically exploiting in her previous tweet to attack white people (ironic, given that all of the shooter’s victims were white).
 
Somewhat similar to the Orlando night club shooting perpetrated by a radical Islamic terrorist whom had been confirmed to have sworn allegiance to ISIS, the Left wants to focus not on the identity of the perpetrator but on the method of killing. They want to target and enslave people by taking away their guns, so they pretend as though AR-15s are a massive threat and that people shouldn’t have the right or ability to own such guns.
 
As a result, Occupier Biden and Democrats in Congress are looking to institute more ineffective gun control (but not before eliminating the filibuster first so that they can impose all kinds of far-Left crap to further cement their power) that will only lead to more such shootings, not lessen them, and will only victimize more Americans than save them.
 
Often times, when such a shooting happens, the Left argues “what if gun control saves just one life?” The thing is that gun control ENDS lives and is more likely to do so the heavier it is enforced. Multiple times, I have shared with you the statistics for Defensive Gun Use (DGUs) and how those uses of guns are FAR more prevalent than offensive and criminal use of guns.
 
Hundreds of thousands to millions of people are saved every year because they are able to use their guns in a defensive manner. Gun control doesn’t stop criminals from owning guns or using them, because by definition, criminals don’t follow the law.
 
I would go further into this argument but we all know that the reason the Left is looking for more gun control measures isn’t to stifle gun-related crimes or shootings of this sort. They LOVE it when shootings like this happen because they get the opportunity to talk about how “dangerous” guns are and how people shouldn’t be allowed to have them and institute policy which would further disarm the populace they want to have complete control over.
 
In a recent article, I pointed out how the Second Amendment still serves as some amount of check against tyranny. This is true because the single best way for tyrants to reign is if their populace is completely defenseless and at the mercy of the government. Venezuelans got rid of their guns and are now wishing they still had them; instead, they have to live in destitution which will not end unless their government is unrealistically merciful and undoes the decades of socialism that they have implemented.
 
Germans got rid of their guns during the Nazi regime and we all know what happened then.
 
Tyrants love for nothing more than for their subjects to be at their complete mercy. Leftists are tyrannical by ideological nature and love any and all opportunities to target the biggest check there is against them: people’s right to bear arms.
 
So they implement more and more gun control laws, call them “common sense” and when they don’t deliver the promised results, they claim that it’s because “we haven’t gone far enough” in that direction. And so they brainwash people more and more into believing that “common sense gun laws” include less and less gun rights until no one is allowed to own guns, apart from those at the top, of course, whom are always protected by the very guns they don’t want YOU to be able to own.
 
But in any case, it is interesting seeing the Left with egg on their face when they make wild assumptions and accusations based on political narratives and seeing them having to backtrack on those things (though some still adhere to the idea that white people and white men specifically are all dangerous).
 
Shame on them for using the victims to try to score political points. Heartless monsters, Leftists are.
 
Isaiah 48:22
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”

It is unfortunate, but many times, it is necessary to learn the hard way what works and what does not. Vladimir Lenin, who initially sought and succeeded to implement communist Marxism into Russian government and way of life, rather quickly saw what happens when you go full-communist: starvation, suffering, torment, and miserable death, not just for citizens but for the country that implements it as well.
 
March of 1921 was a rather important time in the history of the Soviet Union. Following an unsuccessful invasion of Poland in 1920, the Soviet Union was teetering on the precipice of total economic collapse. The farmers were unproductive and starving, as was the general population. To make matters worse, hungry Soviet sailors were getting irritated with the Bolsheviks and their authoritarian ways, mounting the Kronstadt Rebellion and demanding, among other things, freedom of speech and assembly (ironically, considering these guys were self-admittedly faithful to Marxist communism).
 
That rebellion was quickly put down, but Lenin wasn’t unaware of what was happening. The Soviet Union, which was only a few years old by that point, was dying under its putrid system of government which killed all economic incentive. Without economic incentive, a nation cannot survive.
 
So, Lenin, on March 21st, 1921, began to implement the “New Economic Policy” (NEP), which began to undo the effects and causes of the misery of the previous four years, at least to an extent. The New Economic Policy, simply, is the very system which Lenin was previously staunchly against and launched a revolution to defeat: capitalism. Even Lenin was aware of what this was, proclaiming a partial restoration of “a free market and capitalism”, in his own words.
 
Of course, he wasn’t completely reversing course on the communist and Marxist ideology. Lenin was still a communist at heart and wanted as much communism as he could realistically implement in the Soviet Union. It’s just that he at least had enough rationality to recognize that the amount of communism he was implementing was literally killing his very country.
 
It’s possible that he learned, rather quickly, that it was impossible to implement communism in full without seeing extremely negative side-effects such as your country going broke. That may just be because communism only leads to such negative side-effects and it is an absolute pipe dream for it to even remotely work.
 
The idea that everyone is equal and gets equal results might be appealing to some, but that is simply not how the world works. We might try and treat each other equally as much as we can, but there will always be some amount of hierarchy which is impossible to overcome, no matter the economic system in place.
 
In a (usually) capitalist America, you have hierarchies in government, at work, on the streets, etc. There is the President of the United States (a position currently vacant, both legitimately and intellectually), with the VP underneath, and the executive branch which serves under the POTUS. There is Congress which has Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, as well as a Speaker of the House and a Minority Speaker. In companies, there is the CEO/president (not always the same person or position, though), other executives, middle-managers, etc. On the streets, there are the police, who have the authority to arrest people, etc.
 
What I just described as a usual occurrence in a capitalist country also happens in a completely communist country. There is the head of state and whoever is underneath him, there is the police on the streets, and there are bosses in companies (government-owned, but still) who have higher rank than those below.
 
It is quite literally impossible for there to be complete equality in terms of how one treats another, because some will have higher positions than others. It is even more impossible to attain equal results. Not all farmers will produce the exact same amount of produce to (be forced to) share with “the people” (i.e., the government).
 
Ultimately, what communism results in is authoritarianism from those who are in charge and misery for those living under it.
 
Ludwig von Mises put the distinction between capitalism and socialism most eloquently:
 
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system which men can live as human beings.”
 
Those who claim “real communism/socialism has never been tried” fail to understand that, yes, it has been tried multiple times by multiple people in multiple countries, and the results are always similar: misery, to different extents. The only difference between a communist country like the Soviet Union and a communist country like China is the amount of capitalism they chose/choose to implement. China is a bit more capitalistic than the Soviet Union ever was, but even China tried full-on Communism decades ago and it failed too.
 
They are still communists, don’t misunderstand, as they are ruled by authoritarians in the CCP and there is very little social freedom to speak of. But economic freedom is at least a bit more prevalent than what it was in the Soviet Union, and it has allowed China to be at least somewhat economically decent. They still artificially inflate their GDP by constructing ghost cities no one will ever live in (something which will eventually come to bite them in the rear), but they have more relative economic freedom that the USSR did.
 
And those who claim “real communism/socialism has never been tried” also fail to understand that what they desire is nothing but a pipe dream that, when tried, leads to the destruction of a nation in a fairly quick manner. In about a decade, Venezuela went from being highly prosperous to destitute, where their currency is literally more valuable if used to create fashion accessories than for their intended use.
 
All countries which turn towards socialistic policies inevitably see the results of such socialism, and can only stay afloat due to the capitalism that still remains untouched by them.
 
The Foundation for Economic Education gives us just a few examples of societies which turned towards communism (or something akin to it), to one extent or another, and which failed as a result:
 
“Ancient Rome’s Republic began its deadly experiment in democratic socialism in the 2nd Century B.C. It began as a welfare state, degenerated into a regulatory nightmare and finally collapsed into an imperial autocracy. Legislative assemblies voted into office by the Roman electorate constructed the socialist edifice brick by brick. Rome was not built in a day, but concentrated state power had no trouble tearing it down completely.”
 
“The Pilgrims of Plymouth, Massachusetts famously tried another version of democratic socialism seventeen centuries later. It was the communal variety, in which they placed the fruits of their labors into a common storehouse and then distributed it to each other equally… Starvation forced them to scrap it rather quickly in favor of private property.”
 
That story in particular we have shared with you time and time again, particularly around Thanksgiving.
 
The FEE also notes how the Germans elected Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists, Great Britain and Scandinavia adopted welfare state socialist policies following World War II and all had suffered as a result, and New Zealand was bogged in socialistic regulatory madness but largely got rid of such policies which have since freed its economy.
 
To different extents, socialism and communism have been tried, and even the ones that got just a taste of it ended up suffering as a result. Even then, they were still far better off than those which dove headfirst into communism like the Soviets and Chinese, who quickly saw how dangerous it was and needed to reign it in at least a bit.
 
“Real” communism has been tried by many, and they have seen their newly formed nations dying just as quickly as they were created. All forms of socialism stifle the economy and bring about suffering.
 
The antidote, as Lenin seemingly came to learn 100 years ago, is capitalism. Ironically, had he not died just a few years later and Stalin not taken power and gotten rid of NEP by re-socializing the economy, it’s possible that the Soviet Union might have been better off throughout its entirety. It wouldn’t have been great by any means, of course, as they still would have had some amount of communism, but they likely would have been more akin to modern-day Russia and China – still communist (not that Russia calls itself that, and are more oligarchical, but they pretty much are still that with the little capitalism they implement), but not so much that they are on the brink of death.
 
Surely, if even one of history’s most notorious communists learned that full communism brings economic death, then so can others in a far easier manner. I would hope that Americans who are misinformed about what socialism is and does don’t have to drag us through the lethal dangers of full communism before they learn that it doesn’t work.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”

I have written many articles not only about how awful socialism is, but also about how socialism has been destroying, and will continue to destroy, the once prosperous, oil-rich nation of Venezuela.
 
And most recently, I even wrote an article that suggested that Venezuela was moving away from socialism. So, if that’s what’s happening, why are economic problems still ravaging the country? Well, two reasons, really. First, I wrote that article only about a month ago, so things don’t tend to change that dramatically that quickly. Second, I wrote that they were turning away from socialism, not that they were turning toward capitalism.
 
I pointed out how, in their transferring of regulatory power to companies allied to the Venezuelan government, they are acting more like post-Soviet Russia: Oligarchy, not capitalism.
 
If they were turning to capitalism completely, THEN, they would see great economic return very quickly.
 
But in any case, let’s focus on what’s happening there at the moment.
 
Reuters reports that Venezuela is running out of physical cash as Maduro is seeking to speed up the implementation of digital currency called “digital bolivar”.
 
“Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is pressing banks to implement digital payment systems as hyperinflation prompts chronic shortages of cash in the bolivar currency, three people familiar with the talks told Reuters.”
 
Maduro is targeting the public transit system in particular since roughly three-quarters of all circulating cash is spent there.
 
Annual inflation is hitting nearly 3,000%, which is at least better than the peak of 10,000,000% back in 2018 but obviously, it is still carrying plenty of issues for the people of Venezuela. Long lines are forming outside of banks in Caracas, where residents are hoping to withdraw the maximum of 400,000 bolivars, which sounds like it’s a lot of money, but it’s barely anything – the equivalent of 20 U.S. cents.
 
Reuters reports: “Venezuelans have stopped using cash bolivars for food and many other day-to-day purchases. It would take forty bills of 50,000 bolivars to buy 1 kilo (2.2 lb) of rice. Instead, many use U.S. dollars in cash or debit cards – sometimes backed by U.S.-dollar accounts at local banks.”
 
“In a sign of worsening cash shortages, the central bank on March 5 announced it would begin to issue bills worth 1 million bolivars each. Even that would be worth just a handful of [bus] rides.”
 
Those 1-million bolivar notes would currently be worth only 50 U.S. cents at best, as hyperinflation, especially as more of those 1-million bolivar notes are printed, would naturally lead to even that amount of money to be worth less and less.
 
But cash isn’t only disappearing in terms of worth in Venezuela. Physical cash is also literally disappearing in the country. Reuters reports that only 2% of Venezuela’s total money supply is currently in circulation, which is down from 7% just a few years ago.
 
This makes sense, seeing as Reuters noted that Venezuelans have largely stopped using the bolivars to buy food, opting instead to use U.S. dollars, and 75% of the bolivars are used for transit fare.
 
The cash is worth so little that people literally make bags and purses out of the money to try and sell them outside their country. You can find listings of such products on Etsy for around $60.
 
Funnily and coyly enough, Nicolas Maduro admitted to cash disappearing in an interview earlier this year, saying: “Yes, it is disappearing. For Venezuela that is a big advantage.”
 
Of course, he did not go on to explain how or why that was an advantage at any capacity, because everyone, including him, knows that he is utterly full of crap. Like socialists tend to do, he lies to his people and tells them that the poor economic situation is actually “a good thing” or “puts us at an advantage”.
 
I’ve shared this story before, but I feel it’s worth repeating here.
 
Back during the Falklands War between Argentina and the U.K., the Argentine government would often report to its citizens about how they killed this many English soldiers or they took this much amount of ground, etc. If you were living in Argentina during this war and your only source of information was the Argentine media, you would believe that Argentina (which had not fought anything resembling a real and direct war in over 100 years) was kicking British butt. Just 10 weeks after the war started, it ended in Argentine defeat.
 
Again, if you were just consuming the Argentine media, you were led to believe Argentina was winning against the Brits (specifically, the British Navy, which is even more unbelievable), only to find a few weeks later that your country just lost the war and the Falkland Islands (which were called “Las Malvinas”) remain a British colony. All lies, which is no different from what Maduro is doing.
 
The only difference, perhaps, is that the Venezuelans likely aren’t buying the crap Maduro is selling because unlike Argentine citizens during the Falklands War, the Venezuelans are actually and routinely seeing the “advantages” of this socialist economy.
 
Even the Argentine soldiers were led to believe some of the crap the government was spewing. Juan Guerrera, a then-18-year-old Argentine soldier in the Air Force told The New York Times in 1982 “Nobody has explained to us why we lost. I think they should tell me what happened. Maybe I was a bad soldier. I don’t know. But I need somebody to tell me what we did wrong.”
 
So for anyone who understands how these socialist-type government leaders work, the crap that they spew is easily recognizable.
 
There is no advantage for Venezuelans that cash is literally disappearing. It’s disappearing, in part, precisely BECAUSE of the hyperinflation that the country has been going through for years thanks to the socialist and idiotic belief that printing endless amounts of money is the solution to all economic woes.
 
Even at home here in the U.S., there are people who are dumb enough to believe that the country is incapable of running out of money.
 
Clearly, such people have never heard of the Weimar Republic, where the highest inflation rate was 29,500% (for perspective, Fed Chairman Powell has to try to calm the markets about a possible 2% inflation rate in the coming months), or Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s when highest monthly inflation rate was 313,000,000%, or Hungary in the 1940s, when highest inflation rate was 13,600,000,000,000,000%. That’s 13.6 quadrillion percent. According to CNBC, prices were doubling every 15.6 hours in Hungary during that time.
 
At one point, Hungary even had a denomination bill of 100 quintillion pengo.
 
So the idea that the government can endlessly print money without any worries is something that many countries have tried and all of them have seen its catastrophic results. Venezuela is merely one of them and it’s not even the worst case. Again, the peak for them was 10,000,000% inflation rate in 2018. Yugoslavia in the 90s and Hungary in the 40s would both kill for 10 million percent inflation rate. But all of them, to different capacities, have suffered greatly and excruciatingly because of the erroneous belief that the government is incapable of running out of money.
 
Venezuela is seeing this first hand right now and, again, their physical cash is worth so little that they are better off making handbags and purses out of them and selling them outside the country than actually using them to buy things.
 
This ought to be a major warning for any and all countries who think hyperinflation is no big deal or that socialist policies which are misguided at best such as endless money printing is not only achievable but beneficial. History has proven to those who pay attention to it that such policies not only don’t work and are unobtainable (endless physical cash requires endless use of paper which means endless cutting down of trees, so this is a bad idea even from an environmental standpoint) but are altogether detrimental in horrible ways for the people of those countries.
 
Learn from history, or you’ll be doomed to repeat it, as they say.
 
Proverbs 12:15
“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”

The heinous idea that children ought to be able to get gender reassignment surgery, often without the consent or knowledge of the parents, is naturally facing pushback from anyone who could consider themselves even remotely ethical or sane. But we see here a rather interesting and surprising story.
 ​
Weeks following the Alabama State Senate passing a bill which would outlaw hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery for children, a South Carolina state Representative Cezar McKnight has introduced a similar bill to the state House.
 
The bill is called the “South Carolina Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act” (literally borrowing the name of Alabama’s bill but adding “South Carolina” in the front) and, as one might expect, it does the same things that the Alabama bill does.
 
It bans minors from being able to receive gender reassignment surgery as well as hormone treatment such as puberty blockers, charging anyone who does these things to a child with a felony and up to 20 years in prison.
 
The bill states: “… no person shall engage in, counsel, make a referral for, or cause any of the following practices to be performed upon a minor if the practice is performed for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of or affirm the minor’s perception of the minor’s gender or sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex as defined in this chapter:…”
 
It outlaws the prescribing, dispensing or otherwise supplying of puberty blockers, supraphysiologic doses of either testosterone or estrogen to females or males respectively, perform surgeries which would sterilize or otherwise destroy the genitals, perform surgeries which would artificially construct tissue to make it look like genitalia which differs from the person’s sex, or remove healthy or nondiseased body parts or tissue.
 
In simple terms, it protects children from a lifetime of suffering induced by pedophilic psychos who view children as sexual objects and would eternally alter their appearance and chemical makeup.
 
The fact that this bill was introduced altogether is not the surprising part, of course. It makes sense that there’d be legislators out there who are concerned about children being sexually exploited by people using the umbrella of “progress” to further their evil and Satanic goals. The fact that this legislation was introduced by a DEMOCRAT is what’s surprising.
 
Now, let me preface this by pointing something else out. Rep. McKnight, the Democrat legislator introducing this bill, told the following to the Associated Press: “Black Democrats tend to be more conservative than white progressives. I would not have ever put this bill forward if I didn’t think the people in my district wouldn’t be receptive, and they are. Pastors, young parents, older parents, they all tell me the same thing: if you want to do this, wait until you’re 18.”
 
It’s worth mentioning that his district is two-thirds black and votes heavily Democrat.
 
But what’s wrong with what he said here? I agree with the first part, black Democrats tend to be more conservative than white progressives. This is because black people, like all sane people do, value the nuclear family. The ideal family is a mom, dad, and children. This is the nuclear family. And while there are issues within the black community of absent fathers, this is still the ideal family unit for any and all people. It’s why the BLM terrorists once had LGBT crap in their “About Us” page: they want the black community to abandon the nuclear family standard or ideal.
 
In ways like these, white liberals tend to be outright demonic in their agendas, and black people still tend to at least somewhat believe in God and seek Him as best they can.
 
But it’s the second thing that I have a problem with. He wouldn’t have put this bill forward if he didn’t think the people in his district wouldn’t have approved of it? Politically, it makes sense. A legislator is a representative and they get elected to represent the will of the people who elected him.
 
However, this statement calls into question the guy’s morals and ethics. He didn’t put this bill forward because it was the right thing to do. He did it for political points. Ultimately, this is the right thing to do, of course. Children should be protected from these pedophilic devils who want to alter their physical and chemical makeup and to destroy their lives forever. This bill does a marvelous job of that and the legislators who wrote it and brought it up, namely McKnight, ought to be commended for doing so.
 
But it doesn’t appear as though he is doing it for the right reasons. In his own words, there was a condition to having put this bill forward and that is that he believes the people whom he represents approve of it. I certainly believe they do (hopefully) and again, it’s ultimately the right thing to do. But were they to disapprove of this bill, would he no longer support it?
 
Does his ethical code stem not from God or even a consistent worldview but from political tides? Were he a representative in Commiefornia in a district filled with these pedophiles and demons, would he introduce bills which would FACILITATE the mutilation and suffering of children?
 
I don’t want to attack the guy too much because, again, he’s ultimately doing the right thing and this is a very good bill which achieves a wonderful goal of protecting children from nefarious and evil individuals. But there are more important things than politics and scoring political points with your voters and constituents. Namely, doing the right thing is more important, and doing it simply BECAUSE it’s the right thing.
 
But in any case, again, this is a wonderful bill which would go a long way towards protecting kids from pedophilic bastards who seek their own sexual pleasure and satisfaction in truly disgusting ways. I hope and pray that this bill will be passed (23 Republicans have signed on to this and R’s hold 81 of 124 seats, not to mention McKnight is a Democrat) both in the House and Senate (GOP also controls the Senate with 30 of 46 seats) and eventually signed into law by Gov. Henry McMaster (who is also a Republican, so he definitely should sign it).
 
Further, I hope that this bill is also further replicated in other states, in as many as currently realistically can be.
 
There is no excuse for abandoning children and leaving them to predatorial wolves.
 
Matthew 19:14
“But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’”

Back in early February, we wrote a relatively short article detailing a plan where Trump could take the GOP and restore our Republic, with the following four steps: 1) Trump becomes a GOP kingmaker – deciding who replaces traitorous Congressmen in the GOP, 2) Trump spends time fixing election fraud in the six swing states which robbed him of the election, 3) Trump builds his own media network (cable TV, social media, talk radio, etc.) and 4) Trump runs for Congress in 2022 in Florida and becomes House Speaker.
 
Those steps certainly are good, but I believe that these nine steps by Trevor Loudon of the Worldview Report, a conservative publication, are also extremely good and some even build on one of those four aforementioned steps regarding voter fraud.
 
First, a little about Loudon. Trevor Loudon is from New Zealand, which as you would know if you have read some recent articles, was inundated by socialist policies which were choking the large island nation until capitalist policies enriched it. Loudon has reportedly “traveled to every state in the Lower 48 and [has] addressed more than 500 audiences across this amazing nation. My message has always been the same: The United States is heading toward a brutally tyrannical socialist revolution – and if America goes down, every free country follows.”
 
Loudon then proceeds to share some steps which, if implemented, he believes would give the country a fighting chance at defeating and destroying socialism as well as restoring our Republic long-term.
 
Step 1: Face Reality.
 
This step is, perhaps, a bit less necessary for the vast majority of us. Loudon writes: “Millions of Americans are still in complete denial. Many think the military is secretly in control – that it’s only a matter of time until justice is done and President Donald Trump is restored. There’s a ‘secret plan’ – just ‘have faith.’ The truth is that Trump was outmaneuvered by an alliance of communists, globalists, and even traitors in his own party. The ‘deep state’ is now almost fully in control.”
 
Certainly, I have heard my fair share of conspiracy theories regarding what would happen in short time. For example, JFK Jr. making a surprise return to defeat the deep state which killed his father, uncle, and, supposedly, himself and on March 3rd or 4th (I’ve since forgotten when this was supposed to happen), he would somehow restore the country and become something like the 19th President of the United States because sometime during or after the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, an “America Inc.” corporation was founded which somehow changed the country and gave it to globalists.
 
At this point, I don’t remember the details of this cockamamie crap, but it was certainly out there and a number of people believed it. Certainly, less people believed that than believed that the military was in control and would implement Martial Law against the deep state as well as restore the rightful winner of the 2020 election, though after more than 50 days of the Biden occupancy, fewer and fewer people are, I hope, still under the belief that there is a secret plan out there.
 
That isn’t to say that there never was a plan at all, or that Trump didn’t have a plan going into his first term in 2017, but plans change or fall apart. People ought to realize this. That doesn’t mean we give up our nation to the communists because we have far too much to lose if we do, but there is no changing the outcome of the 2020 election. There is, however, the possibility of ensuring that 2020 doesn’t happen again, restoring our electoral process and making sure the Democrats never get their Thousand Year Reich.
 
Step 2: Stop all violent rhetoric.
 
As Loudon writes: “Violence will not save America. The harsh reality is that President Barack Obama had eight years to replace patriotic generals with left-leaning political appointees. He did a great job. If violence breaks out (God forbid) the military will stand with the government, not the insurgents.”
 
This is becoming more and more clear since a member of the military, while in uniform, attacked Tucker Carlson for his segment regarding pregnant combatants in the military which was somehow a controversial take. The guy, seemingly a high-ranking officer, was spouting woke, progressive crap, so he definitely is not on the side of America and patriots.
 
Furthermore, that hundreds of soldiers from Guam were told to visit the office of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene because she mistook the territory for a foreign land in a purely political stunt which just further politicizes the U.S. military goes to show that the military is NOT on our side.
 
Loudon also argues that, were a patriotic uprising to occur and somehow be on the winning side, the Democrats’ friends in Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and North Korea would do whatever they could to ensure that the patriots would fail to take back the power that belongs to us.
 
Not to mention that Loudon also believes the Left is looking for “right-wing violence” to excuse tyrannical practices targeted at their political opponents under the guise of “protecting America.” That is roughly the angle some on the Left were gunning for following the Jan 6th Capitol riot (which we now know was started by Antifa agents masquerading as MAGA patriots).
 
So Loudon basically is telling people that we need to restore America in a peaceful manner devoid of violence, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, that would be the optimal solution. It would be great to be able to do this entirely peacefully, and certainly, that is what we should be aiming to do.
 
Now, Loudon isn’t arguing that we become sitting ducks, either. We must still preserve our Second Amendment as it still serves as some amount of check against tyranny. As Loudon will come to write, we will hopefully save our country with the First and Tenth Amendments, hopefully not the Second.
 
Step 3: Restore Election Integrity in All Red States.
 
Since we are only a third of the way through these steps and this is already a relatively long article, I will try to keep the explanations as succinct as I can. Of course, you can always check out Loudon’s article with more in-depth explanations from the link above.
 
This step is all about restoring election integrity wherever the GOP, specifically patriots within the party, have control. GOP voters, following the 2020 election, are disenfranchised and believe there is no point in voting in nearly any election because they would just be stolen by the Left. In many cases and states, this still holds true. Georgia did nothing to restore election integrity following 2020, so GOP voters didn’t even bother to go out to vote in the Senate run-offs, leading to two Democrat victories (not that the result would have been different with more GOP voters). If the states where we saw these recurring problems don’t stop with their election shenanigans and clear cheating, the GOP will be doomed in those states.
 
“Patriots must work to restore voting integrity first in the red states, then the red counties of the blue states – then after 2022, the whole nation.”
 
If that happens, our elections will be far more secure and, frankly, far less likely that Democrats would be able to not only cheat but also win altogether (but I repeat myself). They want to bring in illegal immigrants, change the rules, and place far-Left justices to make all the crap they want “constitutional” and to eternally hold power in this country.
 
Step 4: Close the Republican Primaries Immediately
 
This one is fairly self-explanatory. Open GOP primaries means Romney-type Republicans get primary votes, which gives them bigger chances at becoming the nominee because Leftists, communists, etc. vote for the most easily beatable candidate. Close GOP primaries means only us patriots (so long as we register with the GOP, of course, which is a bit of a downside but not if we can take the party away from the RINOs) get to vote for who we want, meaning only Trump-type candidates win.
 
Step 5: Organize a Compact of Free States
 
This is perhaps the most important one of the steps, which I think is particularly brilliant. The United States is fundamentally a federation of states. It’s why some states’ governors opt to lockdown their states and institute mask mandates (though unconstitutional, technically) and others opt to open back up and remain open, like Florida did back in the summer of 2020.
 
A state can have its own laws and constitution, so long as they do not override federal laws and the U.S. constitution.
 
So “MAGA folk need to build a ‘nation within a nation’… Every red state with the courage to do so must immediately begin working toward a formal compact to collectively oppose all forms of federal overreach. Such a formal alliance should start with Florida and Texas, then grow by inviting Oklahoma, the Plains states, most of the Southern states, New Hampshire, the free Midwestern states, and the Republican-led Northern and Western states.”
 
“Adding the red counties of the blue states such as Virginia, Maryland,… Washington, Oregon, and California, would create a voting and economic bloc that Washington would find exceedingly difficult to challenge.”
 
And this could well be plausible given that roughly 30 states joined together to sue states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, etc. for how they did destroyed and disregarded their elections process and state constitutions.
 
Step 6: Republic Review
 
This basically just means reviewing and eliminating or nullifying all unconstitutional relationships that the federal government and the individual states have. Like I said earlier, the country is technically a federation of states. Under the Constitution, the states are superior to the federal government. So things like the Department of Education, which only funds states with roughly 10% of the state’s education budget, should technically hold no power over the states’ education. Certainly not by only funding 10% of a state’s education. Yet, we see that the DOE implements Marxist curricula in just about every state, some more willing to accept it and others less so, but forced to anyway.
 
Foregoing that 10% in education budget, the states would take control of their own education once again, not being forced by the Fed to teach their kids Marxist, progressive crap.
 
Step 7: Form a Multi-State “America First” Popular Alliance
 
This one sounds like Step 5, but it functions differently. This is about the political parties and organizations themselves, not the states. You see, the Left has an organization called “Our Revolution” which is a nationwide alliance of 600 socialist groups which operate inside and outside the Democrat Party. They are the reason candidates like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, etc. get elected to their positions in government. “Our Revolution” is not owned by the DNC, but it affects the DNC’s candidates.
 
Loudon suggests we do something similar, an “America First” umbrella group that operates within and without the GOP, and possibly even infiltrating the Democrat Party as well to influence their candidates too. This alliance of MAGA, Tea Party, grassroots movements filled by patriotic Republicans, former Democrats and Independents, etc. could truly take away the power the RINOs have over the GOP and transform it into the MAGA Party that we were wondering if Trump should start.
 
Trump is already doing this to an extent, vetting candidates whom he views as America First.
 
Step 8: Boycott/Buycott Bigtime
 
This is also fairly self-explanatory. Boycott all Leftist companies which cancel patriots for being patriots, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and start buying from companies which stand up to the mob like Gab, Parler, Goya Foods, MyPillow, etc.
 
Divesting from Big Tech would lead them to become “Little Tech”.
 
Loudon does a better job explaining this step in particular, so I highly recommend you click the link to his article.
 
Finally, step 9: Remove Malign Foreign Influence at State Level
 
It’s no surprise that the Chinese, as well as other enemies of ours, interfere in our affairs from what we teach in our schools to how we run our elections. But we can do something about this with the free states (the ones which are in the MAGA Alliance, which should be about 30 states) cracking down on foreign bribery, corruption, espionage, subversion, etc. with corrupt academics, journalists, businessmen and politicians being exposed and punished for their treasonous actions.
 
For example, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis unveiled legislation which would massively curtail CCP activity in the Sunshine State, with that legislation also targeting Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Supporting such legislation and replicating it in all the free states would severely hinder our enemies’ influence on our nation.
 
So these were the nine steps that Loudon shared, which he recognizes that these alone would not save the country, but would at least get us in the right direction. Other plans like that other plan I mentioned in the beginning of the article could also be implemented alongside this one.
 
The general point is that we need to be able to restore our nation and do so fairly quickly with these steps. Failure to do so could mean the Democrats get their Thousand Year Reich. It could also mean that that doesn’t happen, as I believe God won’t allow this country to fall, as if we fall, so would the rest of the free world and we’d be forced to succumb to either Chinese/Russian secularism or Middle Eastern Islam. I don’t think that’s what God has planned for us, however, so there is hope that these evil people will be defeated for good.
 
Maybe such a plan will help and maybe it will not. But we need to be able to do something and we have God on our side. We will win, no matter what; of this, I am convinced.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

I don’t know if the following comments by Don Lemon are the dumbest things he has ever said – they certainly are up there – but they definitely are the easiest to disprove out of just about anything.
 
You see, recently, the Catholic Church stated once again the same view that Christendom has had on homosexuality since the founding of the church 2,000 years ago that homosexuality is a sin, that same-sex unions cannot be blessed, and that God does not bless sin.
 
Because the far-Left hates the Church and all Christians, they attacked the Catholic Church for upholding the views it has always had and which very clearly come from the Bible, which is the very Word of God.
 
But CNN host Don Lemon had perhaps the dumbest take in all of this.
 
Lemon appeared on ABC’s “The View”, and responded to something co-host Meghan McCain said: “You got engaged to your fiancé, Tim, in 2019, and this morning, we learned that the Vatican has said that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions since ‘God cannot bless sin.’ They go on to say that this does not imply a judgment on persons, but I want to know, do you think this sends a damaging message and how do you feel about that given that obviously you are engaged and going to get married?”
 
Quick sidebar, let no one ever again say that any member of the McCain family is a conservative. Asking “do you think this sends a damaging message” alludes to the idea that it is a damaging message to say that same-sex unions cannot be blessed and that God can’t bless sin. No true conservative will stand against God or His Word. That she, undoubtedly, voted for Biden ought to tell people she isn’t a conservative.
 
In any case, Lemon proceeded to share the following gem:
 
“Well, I think there are – listen, I respect people’s right to believe in whatever they want to believe in their God, but if you believe in something that hurts another person or does not give someone the same rights or freedoms – not necessarily under the Constitution because this is under God – I think that that’s wrong and I think that the Catholic Church and many other churches really need to reexamine themselves and their teachings because that is not what God is about. God is not about hindering people or even judging people.”
 
Let’s go over this one point at a time, shall we?
 
First, it’s not about individuals believing in whatever they want to believe in God. God’s Word is clear in the Bible, particularly on this matter: homosexuality is a sin. It is an abomination to Him. It is evil. If someone believes in a god that thinks homosexuality is permissible, they are not believing in the Lord, but a fictitious god conjured up from their own imagination.
 
God is not someone’s imaginary friend who will approve of just about everything that they do. God is the Ruler of the Universe and all creation. His own morals stand above the supposed “morality” of those whom He has dominion over. If your own morality stands in clear and direct contradiction to God’s, you are in the wrong. There is no other way around that.
 
Secondly, who in the world ever said that God is one who allows people to have the freedom to do whatever they wanted? Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden because they did what they wanted (an oversimplification of events, granted, but still) and disobeyed God in the process. The one rule they had in paradise was not to eat the fruit which comes from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They distrusted God, which was the original sin, believing in the word of the serpent that they would not die if they ate of the fruit, and this distrustfulness and disobedience cost them eternal life in paradise.
 
People defying God is literally what doomed humanity, so what makes anyone think that God just allows people to do whatever they want? Furthermore, if God doesn’t restrict people in this way regarding homosexuality, then it would naturally follow that all sins and egregious acts are permissible under God, right? Since God doesn’t hinder people’s “rights” and “freedoms”, right?
 
So the raping of women would be permissible, the slaughtering of children would be permissible, the kidnapping and torture and murder of humans would be permissible, the abuse of animals would be permissible, the defiling of young girls would be permissible, the theft of other people’s belongings would be permissible, the Holocaust would be permissible, Holodomor would be permissible, the killing of 500 million people (roughly 100 million born people and 400 million unborn babies) killed by the Chinese communists would be permissible, and every sin and heinous act of man would be permissible by God.
 
So why stop at homosexuality? If someone wanted to kill and maim Don Lemon, they would be allowed to because “God is not about hindering” the “rights” and “freedoms” of people. God forbid that someone would even think to do such a horrible thing, but hey, Don Lemon seems to believe that God is okay with such things, so why would he himself not be okay with that?
 
And let no one come to me arguing that “Jesus set us free” and that that means we are free to do whatever we want. Anyone who makes that argument is seriously ignorant of what that means. Jesus sets us free, indeed. What does that mean? First, by “us”, it means Christians. Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone’s sins. It’s not like He is buying everyone a round of drinks on Him, allowing us to do whatever we want following His crucifixion. “Us” means those who follow Him, not everyone in the world. Secondly and lastly on this point, He has set us free from the PUNISHMENT of sin, not free to perform sin.
 
Until we are saved by the Lord through Christ Jesus, we are slaves of sin. That is what is meant when I say that humanity was doomed following the original sin of Adam and Eve. Their sin is passed on to every single human on Earth, with the exception of Jesus Himself, being the Son of God and being divine. He was born free from sin, obviously. But everyone else is born in sin and we will die in sin if we do not repent. We are set free from that sin by Jesus Christ, not automatically, but through repentance of our sins and in trusting in Him as our Lord and Savior.
 
But this setting us free does not mean giving us license to sin to our heart’s content. Yes, Jesus saved the adulterous woman who was about to be stoned to death when He called on whomever was free of sin to cast the first stone, but He then told the woman to “sin no more,” so He definitely did not find her actions permissible. Forgivable, yes, upon repentance, but not permissible altogether.
 
Lastly, the idea that God is not about “judging people” is one of the most ignorant and easily refutable takes I have ever heard, and that’s saying something.
 
You can literally Google “bible verses about God’s judgement” and one of the first links will include 100 verses about that very topic.
 
For example, the few that I will share with you:
 
2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”
 
1 Peter 4:17: “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
 
Revelation 20:11-15: “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
 
John 3:18: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
 
Romans 14:12: “So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
 
And Don Lemon ought to be particularly cautious given the following verse:
 
Matthew 12:36-37: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
 
The fact that there even is a concept of sin indicates wrong-doing. That there is a concept of wrong-doing indicates a concept of righteousness. That there are both concepts indicates that there is reward for the righteous and punishment for the evil doer. That there is a concept of punishment for the evil doer indicates a judgment of the evil doer.
 
The idea that God doesn’t judge people is one of the most misguided and foolish things I have heard said about the character of God.
 
Eventually, Lemon even had the audacity to lecture people of faith:
 
“So I would say to the Pope and the Vatican and all Christians or Catholics or whomever, whatever religion you believe out, you happen to belong to out there, ‘Go out and meet people and try to understand people and do what the Bible and Jesus actually said if you believe in Jesus, and that is to love your fellow man and judge not let ye be not (sic) judged. So instead of having the pew hinder you, having the church hinder you, instead of being segregated in the church or among yourselves, go out and have a barbecue and meet people and start breaking bread with people and getting to know them…”
 
This article is already quite long, so I will keep my analysis as short as possible.
 
First, that he misspoke in the “judge not lest ye be judged” thing kind of already indicates that he does not understand what the Bible and Jesus actually said whatsoever.
 
Second, this is not about men judging other men, but about GOD’S judgment, which he claimed He is not about, despite the MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary. The Vatican isn’t the ones judging same-sex unions, they are merely restating the MILLENNIA OLD BELIEF in what GOD HIMSELF says about homosexuality. God judges homosexuality because it is a sin, and He does not bless sin, so He does not bless same-sex unions.
 
Third, “love your fellow man” does not mean we tolerate the evil of man. A parent loves his child, but what love is shown when they tolerate evil acts of the child? A parent who approves or even just tolerates evil acts by their child holds no love for them at all. Love includes reproaching and rebuking of evil. God loves His creation and brings even great sinners to Him.
 
David committed adultery and murder, which God punished, but out of love, not hatred. God rebuked David and brought him back to Him.
 
Moses committed murder against an Egyptian guard which led him to be on the lam for 40 years, yet God brought him to Him and made him a leader of what would eventually be known as God’s chosen people.
 
Abraham committed adultery by bedding his servant, Hagar, because he was impatient when it came to God’s promise of a child and that he would become a father to many nations. Still, God brought him back to Him and delivered him his promised son.
 
Saul of Tarsus hunted down those who believed in the Lord Jesus with the help of Roman soldiers, sending countless believers to their deaths, and God rebuked him, punished him with blindness, but redeemed him upon his repentance of his sins, becoming one of the most important figures in early Christendom.
 
We all sin, but there is no excuse for it. We are forgiven of it if and only if we ask for such forgiveness. No person holds love for his fellow man if he tolerates or approves of that man’s evil.
 
Finally, and to finish things off, Don Lemon has no right to judge believers (as he was doing in that segment, whether or not he realizes it) given his own sins and evils, claiming he somehow knows God’s character better than Christians do, and then go on to encourage Christians to step away from God and towards Man. Whether or not he realizes that that’s what he was doing, it is. Encouraging people to get out of the churches and go to a barbecue to “get to know people” is a roundabout way of saying “leave the Lord and come join us Man in our world.”
 
Satan would love for nothing more than for believers to fall for such deceit, abandoning God and His teachings and His ways in exchange for the teachings of Man.
 
Shame on Don Lemon for doing the devil’s bidding in encouraging believers to abandon God, as subtly or as unwittingly as he did. And that last bit was not the only example of him doing this either, as he "encouraged" the Church and Christians to "reexamine themselves and their teachings." Doing so would be to follow the teachings of Man, not of God.
 
James 4:4
“You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

All ideas proposed by communists are bad. I don’t think I need to go into too much detail as to why, as they often times are self-evidently awful. But there are those who, if for the slightest of moments, somehow think that some communist proposals are logical and would help people out.
 
This article is for such people who are not too familiar with the most basic concept of economics – supply and demand – and believe that instituting rent control will help to lower rent and just make everything good and happy.
 
The Foundation for Economic Education recently talked about this subject as well, and they detail exactly why it is that rent control is a destructive and counterintuitive proposition made by those who fail to understand some of the most basic principles of economics.
 
Theresa Dolata, a resident of the Windom neighborhood in the city of Minneapolis spoke at a February 23rd city council meeting, urging city leaders to support amendments which would allow the city to regulate rent prices, making the emotional appeal that “I don’t want to end up homeless again, I don’t want to be pushed out.”
 
Following her testimony, as well as testimonies from other citizens, the council members unanimously approved a charter that would put this issue on a future election ballot so that the residents of Minneapolis could vote on whether or not they wanted rent control in their city.
 
Council President Lisa Bender said: “The fact that landlords can increase rents with very little notice is impacting people’s lives and their housing stability.”
 
Let’s assume that what Bender said is true. Landlords increasing rent with little notice impacts people’s lives and housing stability. What ought to be the logical approach when tackling this problem? It’s not the attempt at taking that ability away through rent control regulation, but rather, it’s to look for the root cause(s) of the problem.
 
There are a number of things which can impact rent prices, from cost of living in the area to taxes (which is part of that cost of living) to land value to inflation, etc. Landlords are, at the end of the day, businessmen and they are looking to make a profit so that they can live comfortably.
 
Unlike what the Left often portrays them as, they are not wealthy billionaires looking to screw people over.
 
I remember some time ago watching an episode of Alf where the titular alien was writing some sort of screenplay set during the Great Depression. The play was about a poor family of three, mother, daughter and son, living together in a small apartment, barely making ends meet. The characters in the play are often harassed by their evil landlord who takes advantage of them, asking for their rent early and threatening them to raise their rent, with failure to pay potentially leading them to eviction.
 
Without going into too much detail about the episode itself, the reason I bring this up is because that caricature of an “evil” landlord is what they claim all landlords generally are: greedy, evil, super wealthy, abusive, etc.
 
The reality, however, is that most landlords are not super wealthy. They treat their apartment complexes like a small business. Not every landlord is wealthy like Donald Trump or Barbara Corcoran. Not everyone in the real estate business is as wealthy as some of the richest people in the country.
 
But they get treated as such by the Left, and it’s not difficult to see why. They want to get rid of private land ownership so that the government steps in and builds “everyone” homes that they can live in at “affordable” rates. It’s nothing but a classic communist landgrab.
 
The landlords often times see that, in order to still make a profit, as all businesses have to do to stay afloat, they have to do certain things, such as increasing rent. They are often uncomfortable with doing it out of fear of leading their tenants to seek another place to leave, but feel as though they have little choice in the matter.
 
And rent control would only kill their business, leading to basically ALL their tenants to be homeless. If the estate is no longer profitable, no one will invest in it, and tenants would be forced out. That is at least one way in which rent control is destructive and counterintuitive (the stated goal is to keep people like Theresa from being homeless, but that’s exactly what it leads people to be).
 
Rent control, by the way, has been tried in a number of places from San Francisco to New York, Sweden to Australia, and even the entire state of Oregon passed rent control in 2019. Wherever it’s been tried, it has failed, as is often the case for communism in general.
 
Supposedly, the purpose for this rent control is to mitigate rising or high rent prices, but it generally doesn’t actually do that.
 
Berlin tried this, implementing it in February of 2020, and The Economist declares this experiment “a failure.” “Rents may be down, but so is the supply of homes.”
 
Supply of homes, by the way, is something else that affects rent. Which is why I brought up the simple economic premise of supply and demand. If the supply of homes is low and the demand is high, rent will naturally be high, as there are few other places for people to go to which would offer more competitive rent offers.
 
Thomas Sowell writes in his book Basic Economics why rent control is a general failure and depicts how it failed in places like Australia, Sweden, New York, San Francisco, etc.
 
We are asked: “Why wasn’t a single housing unit in Melbourne built in the nine years after World War II…?” With the answer being that “rent control laws had made the buildings unprofitable,” according to FEE.
 
Washington D.C. saw rental housing stock decline from nearly 200,000 to under 176,000 in the 1970s for the same reason: rent control.
 
And Santa Monica, California, saw building permits decline by 90% in 1979 from just a few years prior because rent control made the building of new houses unprofitable.
 
In Sweden in 1948, Sowell writes, there were roughly 2,400 people on waiting lists for housing, but just 12 years later, the waiting list had grown tenfold. In this time, Sweden was building more houses per person than any other country in the world, but rent control made them unprofitable. So even though houses were being built, they were not being rented out, creating an artificial housing shortage.
 
But when Sweden repealed rent control laws, particularly with all the houses that had already been built, a housing surplus occurred.
 
Generally speaking, when socialist policies are undone, prosperity is what follows. This was the case for Germany post-World War II and for New Zealand in the mid-80s and 90s.
 
Rent control is one such socialist policy which is destructive to any economy that tries it and is counterintuitive towards the purpose of instituting such a policy. Sure, rent may no longer go up, but that hardly matters if it leads to landlords no longer being able to afford maintenance of the buildings or keeping the tenants there, leading to even more people to be homeless, if temporarily, which becomes a tad bit more permanent if rent control cripples entire areas.
 
Rent control is sold as a “solution” to homelessness, but it only creates more of it. A common result of communist policies: they create or exacerbate the very issues they attempt to solve.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

Communists are perhaps the most depraved people out there. Even cannibal tribes are, in some way, better than them, because they live and act according to the standard of their own civilizations. They don’t seek change, they don’t want change, and though they do terrible and barbaric things, they at least have the excuse that they don’t know any better.
 
Communists, on the other hand, come from civilized societies, so they should know better than to aim for barbaric things such as mass genocide, or the romanticization of things like cannibalism.
 
And yet, this is, to an extent, what communists in California are doing with a proposed “ethnic studies” curriculum, set to be voted on next week.
 
If passed, it would subject children to a curriculum which not only paints the United States as a racist, bigoted and highly unjust nation, but would also subject the children to chanting to the Aztec ‘gods’ of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and war, among others.
 
“The new program, called the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, seeks to extend the Left’s cultural dominance of California’s public university system, 50 years in the making, to the state’s entire primary and secondary education system, which consists of 10,000 public schools serving a total of 6 million students,” according to City Journal.
 
Investigative journalist Christopher Rufo broke down this story:
 
“California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, based on the Marxist ‘pedagogy of the oppressed,’ instructs students to ‘challenge racist, bigoted, discriminatory, imperialist/colonial beliefs’ and critique ‘white supremacy, racism and other forms of power and oppression.’”
 
“R. Tolteka Cuauhtin, the original co-chair, worked on the early American history material. In the references, he denounces the United States as a ‘Eurocentric, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal, heteropatriarchal, and anthropocentric paradigm brought from Europe.’”
 
“According to Cuauhtin, whites began ‘grabbing the land,’ ‘hatching hierarchies,’ and ‘developing for [whiteness],’ which created ‘excess wealth’ that ‘became the basis for the capitalist economy.’ Whites continue to subject minorities to ‘domestication’ and ‘zombification.’”
 
“In a related ‘mandala’, Cuauhtin claims that white Christians committed ‘theocide’ against indigenous tribes, killing their gods and replacing them with Christianity. White settlers thus established a regime of ‘coloniality, dehumanization, and genocide.’”
 
“The solution, according to the curriculum materials, is to ‘name, speak to, resist, and transform the hegemonic Eurocentric neocolonial condition’ in a posture of ‘transformational resistance.’ The ultimate goal, Cuauhtin says, is to engineer a ‘countergenocide’ against whites.”
 
City Journal also reports: “In theoretical terms, the new ethnic studies curriculum is based on the ‘pedagogy of the oppressed,’ developed by Marxist theoretician Paolo Freire, who argued that students must be educated about their oppression in order to attain ‘critical consciousness’ and, consequently, develop the capacity to overthrow their oppressors. Following this dialectic, the model curriculum instructs teachers to help students ‘challenge racist, bigoted, discriminatory, imperialist/colonial beliefs’ and critique ‘white supremacy, racism, and other forms of power and oppression.’ This approach, in turn, enables teachers to inspire their pupils to participate in ‘social movements that struggle for social justice’ and ‘build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic racism society.”
 
“This religious concept is fleshed out,” continues City Journal, “in the model curriculum’s official ‘ethnic studies community chant.’ The curriculum recommends that teachers lead their students in a series of indigenous songs, chants, and affirmations, including the ‘In Lak Ech Affirmation,’ which appeals directly to the Aztec gods. Students first clap and chant to the god Tezkatlipoka – whom the Aztecs traditionally worshipped with human sacrifice and cannibalism – asking him for the power to be ‘warriors’ for ‘social justice.’ Next, the students chant to the gods Quetzalcoatl, Huitzilopochtli, and Xipe Totek, seeking ‘healing epistemologies’ and ‘a revolutionary spirit.’ Huitzilopochtli, in particular, is the Aztec deity of war and inspired hundreds of thousands of human sacrifices during Aztec rule. Finally, the chant comes to a climax with a request for ‘liberation, transformation, [and] decolonization,’ after which students shout ‘Panche beh! Panche beh!’ in pursuit of ultimate ‘critical consciousness.’”
 
I’m sorry for the few brain cells I just killed by having you read this asinine and evil crap that Leftists in California are trying to pull.
 
But where to begin in this analysis? Well, first, it’s rather ironic that one of the people involved in this straight up sounds like he, himself, is an Aztec. The name Cuauhtin sounds like something you would find in ancient Mesoamerica. Maybe the guy is an Aztec time-traveler, seeing what has come of his former civilization, and seeking to outright forcefully convert and indoctrinate generations of children into following the Aztec religion and rituals.
 
For crying out loud, he wants a “COUNTER-GENOCIDE” against white people, which is a round-about way of saying outright genocide of white people. And he is going to be able to influence children in California?
 
Frankly, I don’t think much analysis of this is needed. They are spelling out their very desires for us. They want to kill white Christians, having charged them with “theocide” and genocide of native people, and seemingly want to include Aztec influence in Californian schools.
 
The Aztecs, in case you need a reminder, were horrible barbarians who routinely sacrificed human beings to their fictitious gods, often times ate the meat and flesh that they sacrificed to the gods, and not only considered this behavior normal but an HONOR.
 
Spanish historian and conquistador Fray Diego de Duran reported that 80,400 men, women and children were sacrificed for the inauguration of the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan under the rule of an Aztec emperor. Even if you were to claim that he inflated the numbers (as Leftists often charge Spanish conquistadors of doing in order to make the natives seem more barbaric than they were), numerous archaeological excavations show that the Aztecs did, indeed, sacrifice a plethora of humans and outright made displays out of the skulls.
 
Conquistador Andres de Tapia described seeing two rounded towers flanking Templo Mayor which were made entirely of human skulls, and between the towers was a towering wooden rack displaying thousands more skulls with holes bored on both sides to allow for the skulls to slide onto the wooden poles, according to History Channel.
 
And according to History Extra, “It is possible that around 20,000 people were sacrificed a year in the Aztec Empire.”
 
I don’t feel bad at all that the conquistadors killed off many native populations of Mesoamerica. The Aztecs, alongside the Mayans, Olmecs, and other Mesoamerican tribes all conducted human sacrifice for the gods which they created in their own minds and forced others to believe in. And now, we have this jackass trying to basically revive that culture by forcing Californian children into idolatry for an asinine cause as “social justice”?
 
And, by the way, the vast majority of those Aztec sacrifices were of people who were not native to the Aztec Empire. Most were either soldiers fighting against them or slaves that they captured. In other words, the Aztecs would, for the most part, sacrifice outsiders. Isn’t that xenophobic? Isn’t that some form of extreme bigotry? It may not have been simply because they were outsiders, as the Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was necessary in order to appease the “gods” which were “fighting on their side”, but they still ended up mostly killing people not native to the Aztec Empire.
 
Furthermore, for all the “hierarchy hatching” that the Left charges the European settlers and conquistadors with perpetuating, even the Aztecs had noblemen and noble families, as well as general hierarchies. For crying out loud, THEY HAD AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT WITH EMPERORS AT THE TOP. I don’t know how anyone with a positive IQ would claim that the colonizers were the ones who brought in hierarchical ways into these societies.
 
And do you want to know what is perhaps the biggest irony in all of this? The fact that they charge the conquistadors with “developing for” whiteness, despite the fact that Spanish people are generally darker in skin tone than other people in Europe (apart from Italians, perhaps) as a result of their geographic location. Now, the difference is not quite as much as, say, those in the Middle East or in northern Africa, but Spanish people were not exactly the whitest of people.
 
Furthermore, the conquistadors weren’t likely thinking in terms of race, but rather, in terms of culture and the desires of the Spanish Empire, namely in expanding that empire and converting as many people as they could to Christianity, as Spain had assumed the role of defender of Roman Catholicism.
 
So to claim that the Conquistadors were “racists” or whatever else and were looking to “develop for” whiteness is entirely ignorant of world history – which is pretty much a requirement for Leftist indoctrination of children.
 
Facts often get in the way of their narrative, so they have to ignore those facts, including history.
 
They will make up whatever incredible claim to justify their actions and goals. And they aren’t exactly secretive about those goals, either. Cuauhtin spelled it out clearly for us that he wants to genocide white Christians. This kind of mentality is obviously dangerous and must be destroyed.
 
These communist idolaters simultaneously push that people “believe in science” and that children participate in idolatrous chants to fictitious Aztec “gods” for the purposes of “fighting for social justice.” These are lunatics and demons who must be rid of in civilized society.
 
There is room for dissent, idiocy and even crazy theories, but the threat of committing genocide against any peoples must be considered genuine. People like Cuauhtin and all those who are in favor of this evil indoctrination curriculum should be in jail.
 
Proverbs 24:24-25
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”