Whenever there is an election season, people on both sides of the aisle accuse people on the other side of committing some sort of voter fraud. Despite the fact that such a clear violation of election standards is most often committed by the Left simply by their desire to count illegal immigrants as “citizens” to give them voting rights (even then, they still get to vote because sometimes, the people in charge in voting polls don’t care if you bring ID with you or not) and their desire to switch to an electoral system that very obviously can lead to voter fraud, that being mail-in ballots, they have the gall to accuse Republicans of committing such fraud through “voter suppression” and other things.
It’s b.s. and they know it, but they have to fight fire with fire and the media would never report on the voter fraud that the Left commits.
But in any case, one way in which states can commit voter fraud is through extremely lazily sending people absentee ballots, as it happened for a prominent writer for TownHall, Jazz Shaw, in a piece he titled: “So New York Just Basically Invited Me To Commit Voter Fraud.”
Shaw explains that he and his wife received a pair of letters that seemed identical, which came from the Board of Elections for the State of New York. The letters were absentee ballots for the two of them to vote in the New York primary election on June 23rd, which the state is going forward with, but with precautions as a result of the Chinese coronavirus that is ravaging the state (and we all know why).
This, in and of itself, is not particularly unusual or troublesome. However, the devil is in the details, as Shaw goes on to explain. He actually transcribed the introduction of the letter for us to read:
“Dear Voter, Our records indicate that you are registered in a party which is having a Primary Election on Tuesday, June 23, 2020. All voters are allowed to vote by absentee ballot for this Primary Election. Enclosed is an absentee ballot request form which is being sent pursuant to Executive Order 202.23 on April 24, 2020.”
Sounds fairly standard, doesn’t it? The problem, as Shaw explains, is that he is NOT registered in a party having a primary election. Shaw explained: “I’m not a member of the Republican Party and I haven’t been for more than fifteen years. Nor am I a Democrat. I’m a member of the Conservative Party of New York State (CPNYS).”
The Conservative Party of New York State does not hold primary elections. “Candidates for the Conservative Party line on the ballot are selected at a convention by committee members with input from party members,” as Shaw explained.
In other words, the records the Board of Elections are either wrong or they are right and they still “mistakenly” (in all fairness, it really could have been an honest mistake, but considering this is New York, I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt) sent him and his wife absentee ballots for a primary election in which it is outright illegal for them to participate since they are not members of the parties holding primaries and the state has closed primaries, meaning that only people within a political party are allowed to participate in that party’s primary process.
But wait, it actually gets worse than that. One could chalk it up to being a simple mistake by the BoE, and it very well could have, but what follows is something that raises a red flag for me. Shaw explains that the first field that needs to be filled on the application requires the voter to give a reason “in good faith” as to why they need the absentee ballot. So you have to provide a reason as to why you cannot physically go to the voting booth and personally show up to vote.
The application gives people a number of options, such as being out of town for the election, having a temporary illness, having a permanent disability, being a caregiver of a disabled person, being a resident of a Veterans’ Affairs hospital or being in prison (yes, they allow prisoners to vote, which is insane on its own, but let’s move on).
This all seems fairly normal, right? After all, you ought to have a decent reason for not being able to vote in person at voting booths. And the reasons they give, apart from the “being in prison” one, are fair and logical. But that’s not the part that raises the red flag for me. This is:
“For concerns regarding COVID-19 and Social Distancing, please select the ‘Temporary Illness’ option on the application as the reason for requesting an absentee ballot.”
In essence, using the virus as an excuse, the Board of Elections is INSTRUCTING people on what to select, even if it’s not true, which I should remind you, IS A FEDERAL CRIME.
This is why Shaw said in his title that New York is inviting him to commit voter fraud. It was bad enough that he wasn’t registered to a party having a primary election and was sent this form anyway, but the BoE is INSTRUCTING him on what to fill in for the reason behind needing the absentee ballot, even though neither he nor his wife ever contracted the virus nor do they currently have it.
Ironically, on the back of the form, the BoE reminds voters that “It is a felony to make a false statement in an application for an absentee ballot, to attempt to cast an illegal ballot, or to help anyone to cast an illegal ballot.”
So who goes to jail if the BoE itself is trying to help anyone cast an illegal ballot? Because that is basically what they are doing here.
Again, the BoE sent Shaw and his wife absentee ballots because they had it on “record” that they were registered to a party that was having a primary election, even though they were not registered. What’s more, they were COACHING people on what to put as the “reason” for needing the ballot, even if it’s not the truth whatsoever.
And this at least one way in which states commit voter fraud. They lazily (or on purpose) send absentee ballots to people that should not be sent absentee ballots, potentially influencing the primary for the Republican Party and then instructing the people on what to say as for the reason that they “need” an absentee ballot for.
As Shaw so eloquently put it: “These letters were obviously mailed out to pretty much everyone, dead or alive, whose name shows up somewhere on the voter rolls. And they clearly don’t have it broken down by party. The idea that nobody who isn’t enrolled would try to obtain a ballot and sent it in seems ludicrous. And it’s pretty obvious that they don’t have a way to quickly or efficiently check all of the returned forms to ensure that everyone is enrolled as a member of the party holding the primary and following the rules.”
If absentee ballots were “mistakenly” mailed to someone who is not affiliated with either party, then it’s not a Herculean leap in logic to assume that someone who is registered in one party received a ballot for the other party’s primary. It’s also not a particularly large leap in logic either to assume someone who isn’t registered for either party and never was still received an absentee ballot.
Someone like, say, an illegal immigrant, could receive this ballot because “the records” show that he or she is registered to one of the political parties. I mean, if “the records” show Shaw to be registered as a Republican, even though he hasn’t been a registered Republican for FIFTEEN YEARS, then it’s not outrageous to assume that just about anyone could receive these ballots because of faulty records.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you get voter and election fraud to occur. It’s how you could potentially get the wrong candidate to win when they should have lost. It’s how you rob the People of their right to select their representatives in fair and free elections.
And let’s not pretend like they couldn’t do this in more important elections than just primary races either. There were many stories of election fraud in the 2018 midterms and videos of people running the voting booths just letting someone vote without proper identification or without even having registered before the deadline.
This is how states commit voter fraud and how the Left often operates to undermine our democratic process. They complain about “voter suppression” from Republicans when Republicans do no such thing, while faking votes for their own guys in the process.
Keep in mind that many of the districts that flipped from red to blue in California were still red by the time the elections should have been called, but Democrats “mysteriously found” more ballots that voted for the Democrats, leading to the flipping of the districts.
We must keep our eyes peeled to this voter fraud that the Left often is a fan of committing. They cannot be allowed to get away with rigging the elections (and let’s not forget they tried to rig the 2016 elections for Hillary and still lost, so there is a pattern for this egregious behavior).
“Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I just love days like today when the Left gives me all the ammo that I could possibly want to utterly and completely humiliate and destroy them with everything that I have. Such an opportunity was given to me when, following the Reade accusations that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her (with her being the eighth woman to come forward to accuse Biden of sexual assault/harassment), the Left switched from their “believe all women” platform to “believe the women who accuse conservatives” platform pretty darn obviously.
And nowhere has this switch been more obvious than in a recent New York Times op-ed written by feminist Susan Faludi, who writes: “’Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap.”
Yes, apparently, we all were just hallucinating the idea that the Left insisted we should believe each and every woman that would come forward with “her truth” with regards to sexual assault. Apparently, it was just conservatives using that phrase just to attack Joe Biden and whatever other Leftist who got caught in this same sort of trap that the Left tried to set on right-wingers like Kavanaugh and Trump.
Apparently, the actual phrase is “believe women”, which is somehow different from “believe all women”. Apparently, the phrase “believe women” is supposed to mean that we take sexual assault claims seriously without throwing away due process and without “reflexively doubting them”, as Jill Filipovic tweeted upon reading the article.
It’s worth mentioning the load of crap that this whole thing is.
Filipovic, in her tweet, claims that “feminists never said ‘believe all women’ – the right inserted the ‘all’. Feminists said ‘believe women’: that is, start with the assumption that women are telling the truth instead of reflexively doubting them.”
Again, that’s a load of crap, not to mention a hilarious attempt at gaslighting. LITERALLY ALL FEMINISTS, WHEN THE METOO MOVEMENT BECAME A THING, STARTED SAYING “BELIEVE ALL WOMEN.” Filipovic either doesn’t remember (how convenient) or is straight-up lying and gaslighting, which is the most likely possibility simply because of the fact that the accusation is being thrown at the Democrats’ last hope of beating Trump in November: Creepy Joe Biden.
Let me share with you just a few examples of the many, MANY times feminists and Leftists in general have used the phrase “believe all women.”
Let’s begin with a tweet from The View on December 8th, 2017:
“’Rapes and sexual harassment are the least-reported crimes in our country because women are afraid they will not be believed and that they will be shamed – and we need to change that!’ Sunny on why she believes it’s essential to believe all women coming forward with allegations.”
From Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) on September 26th, 2018, with regards to the Kavanaugh accusations: “We stand with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, & Julie Swetnik. #BelieveAllWomen.”
That one in particular is hilarious to me because not only does she use the hashtag that the gaslighting leftists insisted feminists never used, but she is also adding Julie Swetnik, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of being at ten parties where she herself had been “raped”, though she never accused Kavanaugh of doing the “raping”. The reason I find it hilarious is because listening to her story for five minutes is all it takes to recognize how utterly bogus and ridiculous it is, not to mention fairly irrelevant, since she never accused Kavanaugh of partaking in the acts she claims happened in such parties.
But regardless of that tangential point, we can clearly see that she is earnestly using the full phrase and unless she’s secretly a right-wing operative or something like that, I guess that’s a case of a LEFTIST, FEMINIST USING THE PHRASE THAT FILIPOVIC INSISTED THEY DIDN’T USE.
From NPR: “’Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #MeToo movement – a mantra embraced by some but dismissed by others as naïve. The tension over the credibility of women is nothing new, especially in rape investigations.”
And here’s an image from one of the protests regarding the Kavanaugh hearings:
All it takes to classify a woman as a “survivor” is simply her telling her story, and Tara Reade has told her story extensively to a number of news outlets. All of a sudden, however, we are not to believe ALL “survivors” and women.
From the University of Oregon’s Organization Against Sexual Assault: “We must educate young boys on the meaning of consent and instill the value of women’s safety in them from a young age. #BelieveAllWomen #consent #MeToo.”
From a Democrat candidate for the North Carolina Senate: “After taking cyberstalking plea deal, WNC’s Rep. Henson to resign. #AboutTime #BelieveAllWomen #endofcorruption #DrainTheSwamp.”
From a mental health counselor who could probably use one himself: “This a**hole assumes the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Trump are fake, but I would bet good money he believes Juanita Broaddrick. #BelieveAllWomen.” (Worth mentioning that, upon finding this tweet, I found a reply that read: "That hashtag is a winner. Thank you. I wish other men believed." which cracked me up when I saw it because this woman wrote it at the time the original tweet was made and she 100% meant what she said).
Time after time, ever since the phrase was brought up, it has been used by the Left sincerely to attack any political opponents they can use the tactic of accusations against. Whenever a woman came forward with a story of sexual assault, we were to believe she was telling the truth and disparage the man that she was accusing, without hearing his side of the story and without granting presumption of innocence.
But now that Joe Biden has been accused for THE EIGHT TIME of some sort of sexual misconduct, even though there is AMPLE evidence of such things from just the pictures I shared in the very FIRST article I wrote discussing the Reade allegations, the response from the Left has been nothing short of a betrayal of the standards they had been trying to set for the last couple of years.
When it’s one of THEIR OWN who is being credibly accused of sexual assault, they either bury the story (like they had been trying to do with the SEVEN other women who came forward to accuse him) or they attack and disparage the accuser, accusing her of lying for Trump’s political benefit or simply being an affront to “progress”.
And the most hilarious part of all of it is that the argument they are trying to use, that the phrase should be “believe women”, not “believe all women”, doesn’t work because both signify the same thing.
There is no significant difference between “believe women” and “believe all women.” The “all” is IMPLIED in the former! Tara Reade is still a woman. The phrase they apparently believe should be used is “believe women” WHICH STILL APPLIES TO HER!
These idiots can’t even gaslight us right! They are arguing for a distinction without a difference! Even if they were right about feminists never having used the latter term, which is 100% wrong, as I just demonstrated, their argument STILL wouldn’t suffice to discredit Reade. She is still a woman and they are still insisting that women be believed.
And the argument that we don’t “reflexively doubt” the woman making the allegations is still ridiculous because NO ONE reflexively doubts women making allegations. What we do is not rob the person being accused of their presumption of innocence while still taking the woman’s allegations with the seriousness it deserves, if it deserves it at all. Accusations like the one from Blasey Ford or any of the other Kavanaugh accusers barely deserved any seriousness because of the fact that NONE of them brought forth any evidence of such misconduct from Kavanaugh.
Ford accused him DECADES after the incident happened. And unlike Reade, who waited almost as long to come forward with her story, Ford never told anyone about what supposedly happened when it supposedly happened. Reade told her mother, brother and those close to her soon after she was allegedly assaulted by Biden. CNN tried to delete a video of a phone call Reade’s mother made to Larry King’s show to talk about it, showing that Reade indeed told her mother around the time that the incident occurred.
Ford came forward with her accusation only when Kavanaugh was about to be the newest Supreme Court Justice and she never told anyone about what happened until the time she made the accusation. And the witnesses she brought forth either did not corroborate her story or outright REFUTED her story.
And keep in mind, Ford was THE MOST CREDIBLE out of all of Kavanaugh’s accusers. Each of the accusers that came forth after Ford were less and less credible, up to Swetnik, who sounded like a loon because she repeatedly attended parties held by the same people she accused of raping girls in those parties.
We didn’t not believe Ford because we “reflexively” doubt women coming forward with sexual assault allegations. We didn’t believe Ford because HER STORY WAS FULL OF HOLES, SHE KEPT CHANGING IT, SHE NEVER TOLD ANYONE BEFORE COMING FORWARD, SHE HAD NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND WAS VISIBLY TRAINED BY ALYSSA MILANO ON HOW TO ACT LIKE AN INNOCENT GIRL IN FRONT OF A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HALF OF WHOM WERE DEMOCRATS WITH AN AGENDA LIKE SHE WAS.
And that last part was the most important one, because it’s easily provable. A video from September of last year showed Blasey Ford’s attorney “telling attendees at a feminist conference that her client’s testimony against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade,” according to Newsweek. So it is painfully obvious that the ONLY reason Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault wasn’t because he did it but because he posed a threat to their paganistic and satanic desire to KILL THEIR OWN CHILDREN SHOULD THEY PLEASE.
Meanwhile, Reade has far more going for her story being true than Ford ever did and Reade is, herself, a Democrat who in all likelihood hates Trump’s guts, so she has far less of a reason to come forward with accusations because of politics.
In all of this, keep in mind the one and ONLY reason the Left is saying the things they are saying: the target of these accusations is Joe Biden. If Tara Reade had accused Trump of sexual assault, even if she didn’t bring with her any sort of evidence or witnesses, she would be celebrated and treated like a QUEEN, much like Ford was. But because she is accusing Joe Biden, the rules of engagement have to be changed.
All of a sudden, the phrase the Left adopted when attacking political opponents, “believe all women” became so problematic that some of their members believed they should gaslight everyone and claim no feminist ever actually used it, when they very clearly did.
All of a sudden, that phrase is a “right-wing trap”, not because the Left has never used it but because it can be used against them by the Right.
So, they ignore the standards they set for other people as soon as they are used against them. Not the first time it’s happened; won’t be the last. But it is always glorious to see karma biting them in the rear and people trying to get them to operate under the rules THEY set.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I could probably write about many instances in which a Leftist has been a hypocrite (and I, indeed, have written many) because hypocrisy is simply part of the Left’s genetic code. However, this one, I believe, is particularly egregious given the times that we currently have to live in.
Despite the media’s adoration of both Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio (though I won’t really talk about him here, only pointing him out because he was as much of a disaster as Cuomo and was getting great publicity because of the “D” next to his name), it is an objective fact that both of these idiots have done things that have hurt their states, both in terms of the timing of their response (they shut down considerably after California did, despite being an early hotspot) and their actual response and decisions surrounding the Chinese coronavirus.
But focusing strictly on Cuomo, allow me to get to point of what is Cuomo’s worst policy in all of this and the egregious reasoning behind it, and that is Gov. Cuomo’s order of sending SICK AND VULNERABLE virus patients to NURSING HOMES WHERE THERE ARE OTHER HIGHLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE.
On March 25th, Cuomo issued a state mandate which required nursing homes to admit suspected or diagnosed cases of the coronavirus. This idiotic mandate also “prohibited nursing homes from requiring a coronavirus test for incoming hospital transfers,” according to TownHall.
In essence, despite the fact that President Trump gave Cuomo every advantage in fighting the virus in approving a temporary hospital at New York City’s Javitz Center and sent a hospital ship with medical supplies and for treating people to the state, Cuomo opted to send sick people to the places where the most vulnerable populations live: nursing and retirement homes.
Either Cuomo is the biggest moron in the world or he did this very much on purpose, knowing what it would lead to.
In defense of his idiotic-at-best decision, Cuomo said: “We worked it out so we always had available beds. Nobody was deprived of a bed or medical coverage in any way. And still, people died. Still, people died. Older people, vulnerable people are going to die from this virus. That is going to happen despite whatever you do. Because with all our progress as a society, we can’t keep everyone alive.”
A couple things to note here. First, and most importantly, this is outright sick. It’s not untrue, but the way he put it is sickening and insensitive.
It’s the same mentality that Italy had when the virus was first ravaging that country, where they would just allow the elderly to die in order to save supplies for the younger people. It’s a death-panel mentality, not unlike that which the Nazis have employed in the past.
Second, this is extremely hypocritical because of comments he made on April 22nd, when he was asked about reopening the state because people needed to work.
To give some context, in that press conference, a reporter asked Cuomo: “Protesters outside right now honking their horns, they’re raising signs. These are regular people. They’re not getting a paycheck. Some of them are not getting their unemployment money. And they’re saying they don’t have time to wait for all this testing. They need to get back to work. They have to feed their families. Their savings are running out. They don’t have another week, Governor. They’re not getting answers. So their point is, this cure cannot be worse than the illness itself. What’s your response to that?”
Cuomo responded: “The illness is death. What is worse than death?”
Now, the illness itself isn’t death, as 98% of people recover. It’s far from a death sentence for most people. Want to know who are the few for whom it basically is? THE ELDERLY WHOM CUOMO HAS NO PROBLEM SEEING DIE, APPARENTLY!
See, this is the hypocrisy of Cuomo. The guy was adamant about not reopening the state, regardless of the crippling financial problems that fall on people when an economy gets shut down, because he believed the illness is death itself. But now, he justifies his decision to send people with the illness, which is death itself, according to him, to those who are most at risk and he has no problem with that at all.
So you have to ask: why would he order such a thing? If he believed that “the illness is death”, then why send people with this death illness to people who are most at risk to die from this death illness?
Back in April, Cuomo made a big deal about the illness being death and how we needed to be careful, and now, it’s passé. It’s perfectly fine that people died of the death illness and it’s perfectly justified because people die anyway, it seems.
Again, it’s hypocritical. Yeah, people are going to die anyway, but then why wouldn’t he have thought of that when it came to reopening the state? His argument for not letting the state reopen was that people were going to die if he allowed that. Now, he finds it perfectly acceptable that people died because of his mandate?
A noticeable portion of New York’s deaths are from nursing home infections. What’s worse is the fact that around March 3rd, the New York State Department of Health changed its disclosure procedures to only report coronavirus deaths from nursing home patients if they physically died in the nursing home, according to TowhHall. Meaning that if any patient who contracted the virus inside the nursing home died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, in a hospital itself, or simply outside a nursing home’s premises, then that didn’t count as a nursing home death, artificially lowering the number of such deaths in the official books.
Cuomo got so much backlash for his March 25th mandate that he made subtle changes to make things look better than they actually were and officially rescinded the order on May 11.
His state order is more disastrous than the actual numbers show, is what I’m getting at.
And in all of this, the guy is actually trying to defend his actions as “everyone dies eventually and there’s no helping it”, which is not necessarily the case here. Yes, everyone dies eventually, but Cuomo’s actions are directly responsible for the deaths of so many elderly New Yorkers, which did not have to happen and possibly would not have happened without such a mandate. Maybe they would have died without the mandate still, but with it, they were basically guaranteed to it. The illness itself wasn’t a death sentence for them. Cuomo’s orders basically were.
Cuomo put elderly people directly in harm’s way and defended it as saying “everyone dies someday.” By that logic, the Holocaust, 9/11 and LITERALLY ALL HUMAN ATROCITIES can be defended because “everyone dies someday”.
It’s an insanely stupid and disgusting argument for a guy who I think knows he messed up badly but is trying to save face. “I didn’t mess up! Everyone dies eventually! Who cares if what I did was directly responsible for this when death is an eventuality!?”
The guy literally has no actual defense and the one he is trying to use is the worst one he could bring up: nihilistic apathy. Again, by this logic, you could defend reopening the state because people were going to die anyway, and yet, he felt it would’ve been a massive risk to do so precisely because of the deaths.
The response to this virus from Governor Andrew Cuomo (and de Blasio) is the perfect example of what not to do during a time of crisis. Simply put, you don’t put one of the most vulnerable populations directly in harm’s way. When you do, you get a sizeable portion of people in that demographic dying off and the numbers show it (and again, the numbers should actually be a bit worse because of the May 3rd change).
Cuomo has been an abject disaster for the State of New York, not that I expect anything to change in the future.
“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
While I’ve already talked at length about the many Leftist talking points surrounding the global climate and have noted people who have debunked those talking points, allow me to get to another oft-used talking point, that being that “the sea levels are rising and our lifestyles, mainly because of capitalism, are to blame.”
That nonsense can very quickly be put to rest for much of the same reason that capitalism outright cannot be blamed for the changing of the climate: the fact that our world is dynamic.
Our climate is dynamic, so it is entirely natural for it to go through warm and cold periods. We’ve already established, time and time again, how there was the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and we are currently going through the Modern Warm Period.
By the same token of a dynamic ecosystem, our planet’s sea levels have seen various shifts, going up and going down. And according to several new research papers, sea levels in various places around the globe were considerably higher thousands of years ago as opposed to today.
Funny enough, the research papers talk about one of two periods in our planet’s lifetime: the Mid-Holocene period, which happened 2000-7000 years ago and the Last Interglacial (LIG) period which happened roughly 120,000 years ago. From that alone, we can discern the fact that, over large periods of time, sea levels throughout the world have gone up and have gone down simply because of their very nature and not because of man.
Let’s begin with the papers that focus on the Mid-Holocene period.
First, we have Lopez-Belzunce, et al., 2020, studying Mediterranean sea levels: “Regarding the stabilization of the RSL [relative sea level], our data show it to be 1.20 m above the present-day level at 3000 cal yr BP and 1 m higher at 2000 cal yr BP.”
What this study is saying is that Mediterranean sea levels were around 1-1.2 meters higher around 3000 calibrated years before present and 2000 calibrated years before present. In other words, the sea levels in the Mediterranean were higher 2-3000 years ago than they are today.
From Burley et al., 2020, studying in Polynesia: “At the time of first Lapita arrival at Nukuleka, sea levels were 1.2-1.4 m higher than present.”
From Lopes et al., 2020, studying in Brazil: “The late Pleistocene-middle Holocene post-glacial marine transgression (PMT) that started around 18 ka b2k in response to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, together with increased precipitation, would have led to another lake highstand… Sea-level curves obtained from several sites along the Brazilian coast show that a mean sea level (m.s.l.) equal to the present one was reached at ~7 ka b2k, and continued to rise until reaching up to +5 meters between 6 and 5 ka b2k… In the CPRS the PMT formed the Barrier IV, and the estimates based on geologic and fossil records indicate that it reached amplitude of about 2-3 meters above the present m.s.l…”
“The altitude of the terrace T3 above the fossils of Toxodon found in situ indicates this was cut by the Holocene sea-level highstand that reached a maximum altitude of 3 meters [above present] between 6 and 5.1 ka b2k. At that time Mirium Lake was invaded by the Atlantic Ocean through Taim and Sao Goncalo channel, becoming a large paleo-lagoon with conditions suitable for its occupation by marine organisms, including sharks, rays, teleost fishes and whales. The coastal waters were warmer than today, as indicated by the presence of fossils of the shark Carcharhinus leucas, common in tropical areas.”
Okay, while that was a lot of technical stuff, let’s go over them before moving on.
Both the Polynesian and Brazilian studies report that sea levels were higher thousands and thousands of years ago. The Lapita people were the Polynesians and Nukuleka is the oldest known Polynesian settlement. The Polynesians arrived on Nukuleka an estimated 2,838 years ago, so this is also within that range of 2-3000 years that the other study was discussing (which makes sense because the Mid-Holocene period was around this time as well, like I said earlier). Those Polynesians saw sea levels that were 1.2 to 1.4 meters higher than what we see today.
For Brazil, we are talking considerably farther back. The first thing it talks about is the post-glacial marine transgression (PMT), which began around 18,000 years ago (ka b2k means “thousands of years before AD 2000”. Don’t know why they don’t just say “18,000 years ago” instead of “18 ka b2k”).
Funny enough, it talks about that event having occurred as a result of what Al Gore and the Left blames humanity for: melting of ice caps and glaciers.
Weird, I didn’t know that humans 18,000 years ago traveled by plane, car, used air conditioners and employed structural capitalism, you know, the things the Left loves to blame even though it makes no sense for them to do so (at least if you are an objective person. We know precisely why they blame capitalism and our lifestyles).
In any case, the study then also talks about the main topic, that being sea levels. The mean sea level off the coast of Brazil seemed to be equal to what we have today around 7,000 years ago and was more than 5 meters higher between 5 and 6 thousand years ago, indicating receding sea levels as time went on (because that’s what they do). It also talks about another area which showed a sea level of about 2-3 meters higher than present at around the same time.
Another area of study seemingly showed that the sea level was 3 meters above the current levels roughly 5,100 to 6,000 years ago. And the final thing that the study mentions is the water temperatures, as indicated by the fact there was the fossil of a shark that can usually be found in tropical climates.
Moving on to other studies, while there are a few more that talk about the Mid-Holocene period, I believe the point has been made for that one.
From Muhs et al., 2020, studying in the Bahamas and Bermuda, talking about the Last Interglacial period of roughly 120,000 ago: “Corals with closed-system histories collected from patch reefs on NPI have ages of 128-118 ka and ooids/peloids from beach ridges have closed-system ages of 128-126 ka. Elevations of patch reefs indicate a LIG paleo-sea level of at least ~7m to ~9m above present. Beach ridge sediments indicate paleo-sea levels of ~5 m to ~14 m (assuming subsidence, ~7m to ~16m) above present during the LIG… Results of this study show that at the end of the LIG paleo-sea levels could have been as high as 11-13 m above present (at localities close to North American ice sheets) to as little as 5-8 m above present (at localities distant from North American ice sheets.”
This is important to note because 5 or 7 meters to 14 or 16 meters is A LOT of meters. At the low end, these scientists are saying that sea levels were a little over 16 FEET higher than today. At the high end, that goes up to as much as more than 52 feet.
Contrast that to the relatively minute doomsday warnings of a few centimeters and inches extra of sea level rise we get from the climate cult!
Reality has shown that sea levels can go higher than what the climate cultists say it currently is going, and despite all of that, regardless of how much they claim that sea levels are rising, we can clearly and plainly see that none of this is unprecedented.
Now, make no mistake, the sea levels being so many meters higher than they are today does bring with it awful results. Depending on where it happens, cities can, indeed be flooded this way. So it does present actual problems. However, the “solution” to these problems isn’t for people to abandon their use of air conditioners or cars or air travel or for the United States to turn towards socialism. All of those have a negligible-at-best, disastrous-at-worst result.
What all of this tells us, however, is that it is not unforeseen for the sea to rise to incredible levels and it definitely cannot be blamed on man-kind, and therefore cannot be solved by mankind. The best we can do is hope to mitigate such damage were it to occur (and there is no real indication that it will, but it’s worth keeping in mind that it could, as it did happen in the past, albeit hundreds of thousands of years ago and such levels have never been seen since then).
Whatever magic beans the Left tries to sell people with regards to the environment and climate change, they are nothing but garbage. The people that peddle these nonsensical solutions are snake oil salesmen too gripped by the fear and terror of the Left’s narrative to see reason.
We can clearly see that all of the “terrible and awful things” happening to the climate are not a result of humanity, given the history of the planet. Here’s hoping more and more people come to the realization that humanity cannot be blamed for natural events.
“I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
A little more than a week ago, I talked about how people trust Trump over Biden when it comes to both the economy and handling the coronavirus pandemic, according to Reuters, and I mentioned how it was interesting that Reuters, of all polling organizations, was reporting this. However, we have something today that is a little bit more unexpected:
President Trump beats Joe Biden in several key battleground states by a decent margin, and this is being reported by CNN, the same people who have run fake news story after fake news story, coupled with fake news poll after fake news poll, regarding Trump, Russia and whatever else they can falsely accuse him of doing. These very same people, who not too long ago I talked about how they went from accusing Trump of colluding with Russia to actually colluding with Russia themselves when it came to reporting the pandemic in the “former” Soviet Union, are now reporting that their boy, Joe Biden, isn’t doing all that well.
Now, in their national poll, and what they will likely wish to focus on, they have Joe Biden beating Trump 51 to 46 percent. However, as we all well and truly know, the election is never a national race, but a race for all 50 states, and as I just said, Trump has Joe beat in plenty of the most important ones.
As a whole, CNN’s poll of 15 battleground states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) shows President Trump beating Joe Biden by seven points, 52 to 45 percent with a margin of error of 3.7 percent.
Funny enough, this was also coupled with the fact that earlier in the week, CNN was forced to publish another poll which showed President Trump’s approval rating at its highest in the poll: 45%. Despite all of their hackery and their political attacks that are very obviously biased (and they don’t even try to hide their bias anymore), despite everything they’ve tried throwing at him, he’s only come out of each and every attack stronger than before.
It also doesn’t help the Left that Joe Biden has been marred in controversy over the past couple of months given the Tara Reade situation that Democrats and the media are DESPERATELY trying to bury under the rug (I find it hilarious that Schumer is panicking and was also satisfied with just Biden’s denial).
Another aspect that might not exactly help the former Vice President is the fact that he was very clearly involved in the witch hunt of Gen. Michael Flynn, given released records that showed he both was in the meeting where Obama and his staff were discussing Flynn and that Joe Biden was among the MANY people who asked for Flynn’s “unmasking” in official documents (which were first reported by CBS News but the Biden camp has forced the news organization to get rid of the story, further showing Biden lied about not bullying the media).
But getting back to the polling, RealClearPolitics’ poll of polls, which is a poll taking the averages of various polls, shows Biden’s popularity slipping following the Tara Reade story. Just a couple of months ago, Biden had a 51 to 44 percent lead on Trump, but now, Biden has slipped to 47 percent and Trump sits at 43 percent.
Trump’s job approval has also gone up in that particular poll, sitting at 45%.
Getting back to the CNN poll itself, it finds that Trump beats Biden with Independents, 50 to 46 percent. Biden has the advantage with women (funny enough) at 55 to 41 percent. Minorities also overwhelmingly support Biden over Trump 69 to 26 percent, but that is actually not particularly awful for Trump, as Republicans tend not to be too favored by minorities and Trump sits at 26% with them in that poll, which is rather high, all things considered. If that number holds, Trump will win plenty of minorities in the election.
In any case, Trump beats Biden with men, 50 to 46 percent and with white voters, 55 to 43 percent. Strangely enough, Biden has an advantage over Trump when it comes to older voters, those aged 45 and up, holding a six-point advantage over Trump, which is a bigger advantage than what he has with young voters, which is a three-point lead over Trump.
CNN commented on this, saying: “Though other recent polling has shown some signs of concern for Biden among younger voters and strength among older ones, few have pegged the race as this close among younger voters. The results suggest that younger voters in the battleground states are tilted in favor of Trump, a stark change from the last CNN poll in which battleground voters were analyzed in March[.]”
Breitbart News chalks this up to being the Bernie effect, with many of those young voters having been Bernie supporters and being disenchanted and outright enraged that Bernie once again got screwed over by the DNC and was kept from being the nominee. But this is not the first time we have heard of Biden, or even Democrats in general, not getting the youth vote to turn out.
Just two months ago, I wrote an article about how young people largely don’t tend to vote. In it, I showed a graphic that displayed reported rates of voters by age, showing the youngest demographic – those 18 to 29 years of age – voting at far fewer rates than those who are older than them.
However, there is a noticeable difference between people who turn out to vote and people who voice support. Plenty of young people voiced their support for Bernie Sanders, but notably fewer actually turned out to vote for him. Biden doesn’t even have all that much SUPPORT from young voters, which definitely will come to hurt him with that demographic come November (again, if this holds up).
Of course, he does have a very strange and nonsensical lead with older voters, and those tend to vote more, but I sincerely doubt that would be anywhere close to near enough to secure an electoral victory.
Again, the CNN poll itself shows Trump soundly beating Biden in key battleground states. Joe could very well win the popular vote (maybe), but the electoral college is where the votes are most important and he isn’t doing too well, it seems.
What’s more, considering the economic recession that we are about to face because of Leftist governors’ decision to keep their states closed just to hurt Trump (which will undoubtedly come to bite those Leftists in the rear come November, if the previous special election was any sort of indication), people know we will need a president who can quickly and effectively rebuild the economy and Trump has Joe soundly beat on that area as well, with a margin of 54 to 42 percent on Joe.
So both Reuters and CNN show that voters trust Trump with the economy more than Joe Biden, and it seems they largely know just who is responsible for the economic downturn that we are about to face: the “Resistance” Democrat Party, particularly the Democrat governors, who are choosing to shoot themselves on the foot just to get a chance to hurt Trump.
But as with Reuters, it is extremely interesting that CNN would be the ones to report this. Usually, they have nothing but negative (fake) news to report on Trump, but every once in a while, they are forced to at least relatively face the reality that they abhor: Trump is nowhere near as unpopular and despised as they say that he is.
Now, there is still plenty of time before the election, but if these numbers hold, I don’t really see a way Joe beats Trump (and as I have said many times in the past, this confidence should not translate to complacency for us Trump supporters and voters, as that is the only thing that could definitely beat the President).
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The states of Wisconsin and California recently held special elections despite the current pandemic situation and the stay-at-home orders in place and to the joy of Republicans and conservatives, the Republican candidates enjoyed massive victories in both.
Let’s begin with Wisconsin, which Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate and a state senator, won by 15 points to gain the seat of the former representative Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) after he retired and the seat was vacated back in September of last year.
According to the Associated Press: “Tom Tiffany, a state senator endorsed by President Donald Trump, easily won a special congressional election Tuesday in a heavily conservative, rural Wisconsin district, cheering Republicans even as Democrats argued the victory revealed vulnerabilities for the president among his base.”
Yeah, let me go ahead and say the following:
The “vulnerabilities” they are talking about are nonsense. Trump won that district by 20 points in 2016, so it definitely is a conservative district. A Republican’s victory is expected. What Democrats are trying to argue is that Tiffany won that district by “only” 15 points, which is five less points than Trump won it by four years ago.
However, the reasons for that “drop” are simple. First, we are comparing a special election that the vast majority of people, at least outside of the district, likely didn’t even know was happening to a record-turnout election in 2016 that virtually everyone and their mother was talking about.
General elections ALWAYS have bigger turnouts than midterm and particularly special elections. For Tiffany to still win that district by 15 points in a non-general election is a big deal and does not reveal any vulnerabilities for Trump and his base. The result is fairly relative to what Trump got under better circumstances.
Second, we are in the midst of a pandemic. Seemingly, 191,549 people went out to vote in that special election (by comparison, 362,061 people voted in 2016 in that district and 322,787 in 2018, so a noticeable drop). It’s clear that considerably less people voted in this special election because of both the fact it was a special election and not a general or midterm election and the fact that there is a pandemic going on and plenty of people would rather not go out and risk getting sick just to vote in a relatively minor election in comparison to what this November will be.
The fact that the Republican had these restrictions to fight against and STILL won in a major way is not indicative of any vulnerabilities for Trump and his base. His base won’t abandon him unless he abandons it and any candidate that supports the MAGA movement is going to get the support of Trump’s base.
But now, let’s look at the other race, which is a little bit more interesting: the race in California.
Now, I should mention beforehand that it’s not like this was an election to oust Nancy Pelosi or anything of the sort. This election was in a typically red district that happened to have turned blue in 2018 when former Rep. Katie Hill (remember her?) won it in the midterms. This election isn’t necessarily an indication that California is turning against the Democrats or that it will abandon its communist free trial that they are voting for. Katie Hill’s victory in 2018 was a little bit of an outlier for this district since she was the first Democrat to win it since 1992, following a redrawing of the district maps.
However, as with the Wisconsin race, it’s not merely about who won it, but just by how much they won it. And Mike Garcia, the Republican candidate in California’s 25th district, won by a sizeable margin. California’s 25th district covers (some of) Los Angeles County and Ventura County.
Mike Garcia won Los Angeles County by 11 POINTS, with 107,710 total votes in that county and won Ventura County by 15 points as well. In total Garcia garnered over 80,000 votes and won the district by nearly 13 POINTS, which is a sizeable percentage.
This marks the first time a Republican flipped a blue seat to red since 1998, though as I said before, this was a typically red district and Katie Hill was a bit of an outlier, so this is more of a return to normalcy than it is a sign of Democrat doom in the larger state as a whole. However, there is no denying the significance of this victory at any rate. The Democrats thought they were going to take control of all of California and keep it basically forever. They believed any race in the state of California would automatically go to the Democrats.
This election proved them wrong and proved that they are nowhere near as invincible as they believe they are. Is this an indication that Trump will win California in November? Almost definitely no. But it is an indication that the Democrats aren’t as popular and liked as they delude themselves to be.
Both of these elections, though Republicans tend to win them, marked big losses for Democrats. For one, a formerly blue seat has now been flipped to red, even though it usually was red anyway. That means one less vote for Democrats in the House of Representatives. But the most important takeaway is just by how much these Republicans won. It wasn’t even a contest in either one. If Trump truly had the “vulnerabilities” the Left believes he does, the Republican candidates that he endorsed would not have won by anywhere near the margins that they did.
The Wisconsin seat was likely to still go red and the California seat usually was red until last midterm election. But there’s no denying that this is a cold reality check to the Left: they aren’t invincible and 2020 will be no cakewalk for them.
The margin of victory for both Republicans is the bigger story, in my opinion. Both are major victories for the GOP and major losses for the Democrats, regardless of whether or not they admit so (and they largely won’t).
And let’s not even pretend like the Democrats wouldn’t have pretended this was a victory for them had it been any closer anyway. For crying out loud, they are arguing this exposes Trump “vulnerabilities” when they lost by DOUBLE DIGITS! They are actually delusional fools.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In what Gen Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sydney Powell, called a “travesty of justice”, Judge Emmitt Sullivan tabled a motion by the DOJ to dismiss the case against Flynn. After evidence was released that the FBI set a perjury trap for Flynn, rather than totally toss this case into the garbage, the activist judge invited interested parties to file friend-of-the-court briefs, called amicus briefs, to weigh in on the case.
Who are these friends of the court? No other than 16 dinosaur Watergate prosecutors from the 1970s! Do they have any personal interest in this case? Nope. Their interest is solely the fact that they want to run Trump out of office just like they did Nixon. They’re engulfed in their past glory! But more than anything, they’re the Deep State!
Now, the timing of activist Judge Sullivan couldn’t be more suspicious…
As you probably know, there was a phone call with Obama and his former aides last week in which the former president said “There is no precedent that anybody can find for somebody who was charged with perjury just getting off scot-free”. Now we know that none of this is true. But since it’s Obama saying this, his faithful worshipers wouldn’t dare correct him. But isn’t it strange that Clinton appointed activist Judge Sullivan now decides to delay resolution of the Flynn case after his spiritual leader demands that Flynn be punished?
Let me be clear: there IS no case. The most this activist judge can do is delay, delay, delay such that he may feed the media with the narrative as if there was a case to hurt Donald Trump as we get closer to the November election. But there is no case. You see, Sullivan cannot try a case that the DOJ doesn’t bring to court. And AG Barr cannot bring anything to court because he has no evidence of any wrong-doing on the part of Gen Flynn. Therefore, ultimately Sullivan will have to toss the case as well.
But that doesn’t stop the activist judge to help his activist friends in the Media such that the Democrats may have a better shot in the November election. It’s all political. Sullivan is complicit in generating a phony news cycle to keep the story going to help the Democrats. He’s a Leftist political hack.
But that doesn’t explain why they fear Flynn. I get the fact that Flynn is the ticket to Trump. And they hate Trump. But why this obsession with Flynn?
And it is an obsession indeed: let’s not forget that when he was President, Obama fired Flynn, started an investigation on Flynn and made sure to recommend Trump during the transition not to hire Flynn. Why Flynn? Why this obsession with Flynn?
One could speculate that Flynn knows something about Obama that the former President doesn’t want the public to know. But that’s pure speculation on my part.
Or it could be that Obama simply hates Flynn’s guts for no reason. That would make Obama insane – nobody hates anybody for no reason.
Whatever the case, we know that there has to be a reason for Obama’s obsession with Flynn and his strong desire to ensure Flynn is convicted.
Sure, ultimately a Flynn conviction makes Trump look bad and this alone, in the Deep State’s opinion, would pave the way to them winning the White House. And that’s why Sullivan is being such a good servant doing what his Master, the former President, demands.
But I have to tell you, Obama’s beef with Flynn goes way back to 2014, when Obama fired the General. So whatever feelings the former President has for Flynn today are not new. And the question becomes, why?
We know there is no case against Flynn. We know that all this delay does is feed the Leftists in the Media with the narrative they need to help their friend Joe Biden or whoever ends up getting the Democrat presidential nomination.
Hopefully people will see the truth. Hopefully they will see that if they go after Flynn like this, they can go against anyone and for no reason. We’re already seeing the Left’s true colors during this lockdown, with 77 year-olds or moms being arrested for wanting to reopen their businesses and feed their families. Rights are being violated. What makes anyone think that what’s happening to Flynn won’t happen to the rest of us? If they made up a case against Flynn, what makes us think they won’t do the same against anyone?
The deep state prosecutes innocent people with the help of activist judges like Emmitt Sullivan. Their trials take years to be resolved. They go broke in the process. It’s hard not to conclude that our freedoms are lost.
If we’re to remain a free country, we need to ensure to really drain the swamp. It won’t be easy, but we need to fight.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
Author: Danielle Cross
The typical socialist, in trying to defend the undefendable ideology that is socialism/communism, will try to argue that capitalism is “selfish” and “bad for the people” and that, by contrast, socialism/communism is “selfless” and “good for the people”, as the people are “put first” over businesses, etc. This is an outright lie as history has shown time and time again. But in the modern era, nowhere is it more true than in the hellhole that is Venezuela, the socialist country that was suffering BEFORE the pandemic forced its already broken businesses to be locked down and its people to be out of work.
To get a good sample of what it’s like to live in a socialist hellhole like this, let’s turn to Christian Caruzo, a Venezuelan citizen who recently wrote an op-ed for Breitbart News about the current situation in the country.
Caruzo talks about how, despite (or because of) numerous and exponential increases in the country’s minimum wage (a wage which most people, if they don’t work in the dwindling private sector, are paid), most people can hardly afford to make a sandwich for themselves.
His piece is titled: “Socialist Venezuela, Where Everyone Is A Millionaire And No One Can Afford Eggs”.
He begins: “The Bolivarian Revolution has raised the minimum wage over 50 times throughout the past 20 years. As of May 2020, it’s been set at 400,000 bolivars, plus a 400,000 socialist food ticket bonus, bringing it to an astounding total of 800,000 bolivars per month.”
Sounds like a dream, doesn’t it? People being paid nearly a million bolivars every month, surely, everyone is a millionaire and must be living in paradise! Well, a simple-minded socialist might believe that this is heaven on earth, but reality is far different because of one thing: hyperinflation.
I’ve made this point before elsewhere, but I will make it again: in the Disney movie The Incredibles, a movie about a superhero family, the main villain of the story’s big plan is to give everyone access to technology that essentially emulates super powers. In his own words: “And when everyone’s super, no one will be.”
In essence, his evil plan is to make official superheroes irrelevant and nothing special, because everyone will have the ability to be super-powered and “be a hero”.
The same basic principle applies to economics: when everyone is a millionaire, no one is. And that is the current situation in Venezuela, where despite the fact that they are all paid seemingly large sums of cash at the minimum wage and everyone is usually a millionaire in their currency, it’s all practically worthless because of hyperinflation.
Something tends to have value when it is rare. It’s how demand works. If there is a ton of supply of something, such as a particular currency, then demand for that currency goes down and its value falls as well. It’s why you can’t just print ungodly amounts of money to pay for things like the Green New Deal. The more you print, the less value the dollar has.
Venezuela has been having to print more and more because of the wage “increases” they have made and hyperinflation kicks in. That 800,000 bolivar per month sounds good until you realize that that amounts to roughly $4-5 a month.
All of a sudden, the socialist dream seems more like a nightmare, because it is. Here in America, Leftists are arguing in favor of a $20 an HOUR minimum wage. They were just done arguing and passing a $15 an hour minimum wage (all of a sudden, $15 is still not enough, apparently) and not long before then, they were arguing in favor of $10 an hour.
Without going into detail about how idiotic this is and how bad it is for both businesses and employment, keep in mind that this country can afford to have such wages because of the value of our currency. Really makes you think about how blessed we are in this country to have the wealth that we do and how we shouldn’t take it for granted.
In any case, like I said, Venezuelans are usually paid $4-5 a month under minimum wage. Despite the promise of a socialist utopia where everyone is wealthy, except for the people who already were wealthy because socialism is all about revenge to these people, the reality is that everyone is DIRT POOR. And make no mistake: it’s by design.
The purpose of socialism isn’t to benefit the people, but to control them. A poor populace dependent on the government to survive is less likely to fight against the government. Despite the displeasure of the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans with the current leadership, they can’t do anything, not only because they don’t have the weaponry to stage a revolution, but because their very survival, and that of their families, is tied to the government giving them money, little as it may be.
Another factor that has contributed to the dire situation is price controls by the government. Caruzo, in his article, shared some pictures of food and the prices that they go for. In order to buy a little more than half a pound of the CHEAPEST ham and cheese he could find, he had to fork over more than 600,000 bolivars, or three-quarters of a month’s salary at minimum wage (he didn’t specify if he was on this wage, but millions of Venezuelans are and he also noted some of his own financial struggles).
In order to buy bread, he had to pay over 259,000 bolivars, bringing his total up to nearly 900,000 bolivars. In order to make himself some sandwiches, Caruzo has to pay more than an entire month’s minimum wage. JUST to make sandwiches. Never mind all the other expenses such as rent, electricity (if he has any), other food in general that he might want to eat, clothes, masks to protect himself from the virus (which has also screwed the country a lot), etc.
The cruel irony of it all is that the government considers all of these minimum wage increases to be a GOOD THING, given a propaganda poster that Caruzo shared which boasted of the number of times the regime approved minimum wage increases since the revolution, with six of them coming in just the year 2018.
Now, I am not surprised that the Venezuelan government would try and promote itself as doing no wrong and that the wage “increases” are “good”, but most of the people in Venezuela have to see all of these supposedly “good” things, all of these “good” wage “increases” and see how they and their fellow citizens and residents are living and think “something isn’t right here”.
Raising the minimum wage over and over again is irrelevant if the value of the currency goes down and people find it harder to afford things. Caruzo even noted that “Around mid-September 2019, I purchased the same type of bread… except that the price at the time was 38,800 bolivars, not 259,700 bolivars. If we go by an average exchange rate at the time it was produced, it gives you roughly $1.75. The minimum wage at the time was 40,000 - $1.80.”
In other words, while the minimum wage increased, and by a lot, between mid-September of last year and the time that it was raised again, it was entirely useless because hyperinflation brought the price of bread sky high as well. You have to pay most of your monthly salary in order to afford bread, regardless of whether the minimum wage was at 40,000 or 800,000.
I would hope that most people, even the most ardent supporters of socialism in this country (aka people who don’t know what socialism actually is) would realize why that’s a problem.
Now, a socialist might try and argue “if the government controlled the prices, then they wouldn’t go up so much and it wouldn’t be so expensive.” Except that, as I said before, the government DOES control the prices. But profits still need to be made, at least somewhat, in order for production to still exist. If the government forced pre-wage-increase prices on products in a post-wage-increase economy, the producers would lose a lot of money very quickly and would lose the incentive and ability to make such products.
Basically the only thing that would drive a revolution is a people desperate enough with seemingly as little to lose as possible. Push people far enough and they will push back. The socialist government’s plan is to make the people poor enough that they can’t fight back but not so poor that they feel they would have nothing to lose by fighting back. This is the balance socialist governments seek, which is why they can never go full-communist, lest the entire economy goes to ruin, their people revolt and their power is jeopardized.
But like I said, I would hope people would realize how bad this is and how much of a nightmare the socialist “dream” actually is. The only people that benefit in a socialist country are people in the government and the 1% (both tend to be one and the same), while the rest of the people suffer in controlled misery.
Socialism isn’t for the benefit of the people. That’s an outright lie, as history has shown time and time again. The people of socialist Venezuela have definitely not benefited under socialism. No, socialism is only ever to the detriment of the people, which is why it cannot be allowed to take hold of this country (more than it already has).
“It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is rare for us to see blue-on-blue crime, so to speak, but boy is it a joy when we do. Recently, Michael Moore produced and released a movie attacking the environmentalist movement (without departing from the overall insane ideologies it espouses) as being ineffective in the way it attempts to “fight” climate change.
Without going too much into detail, the movie talks about the inefficiencies of current “green energy” alternatives to fossil fuel as being just as, if not more, environmentally unfriendly as fossil fuels. However, Michael Moore’s ultimate solution isn’t to abandon the ridiculous and actually insane movement or to undo the damages it has caused. Rather, it is to go down the route of eugenics and espousing heavy population control to mitigate the amount of people that can affect the environment.
This, even in the eyes of a wacko environmentalist, is asinine. Not only is it asinine, but racist, according to George Monbiot, who wrote an entire Twitter thread to explain his reasoning (and he also wrote about the movie in a UK Guardian article, which I will cover in a moment).
The Twitter thread is quite lengthy so bear with me.
“Prompted by the shocking falsehoods in Planet of the Humans, this thread asks why so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth. The conclusion will enrage some people, but I think it’s unavoidable. Let’s take this step by step,” began Monbiot.
“There’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of many issues about which we should be concerned. But the global impact is much smaller than a lot of people imagine.”
“Undoubtedly, rising human numbers can have important local effects: pressure on housing, green space, wildlife, water quality etc. And it’s essential that all women have full reproductive choice, full control over their own bodies and full access to family planning.”
Ah, yes, good to see the Leftist shilling out for Leftist women by loudly proclaiming a right that they definitely do not have: the right to kill their own children should they please. Even though the originator of American abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was the very eugenicist that Monbiot seemingly dislikes, as he makes note in one of the tweets in this thread. And we will get back to Sanger in just a moment.
“But I see population growth repeatedly blamed as THE MAIN CAUSE of climate breakdown and other global issues. This is flat wrong.”
“There’s something else to note. The great majority of the world’s population growth is happening in countries where most people are black or brown.”
“So why do so many people in the rich world (the great majority of whom, in my experience, are male, white and quite affluent) insist, often furiously, that the ‘real’ global issue, the ‘elephant in the room,’ is population growth?”
“The first part of the answer is deflection. Blaming other people for your own impacts is a familiar means of avoiding responsibility and shedding feelings of guilt. But why point to the birth rates of the poorest people? Why not to consumption by billionaires?”
“It’s clear to me that generalized deflection is an insufficient answer. This is a particular variety of deflection. What we see is white people pointing the finger at black and brown people, saying ‘It’s not us. It’s Them’.”
“In different ways, this has been happening for a long time. Throughout the colonial era and after, the rich nations portrayed themselves as the ‘civilized’, virtuous actors, while their colonial subjects were ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate.’”
“There was – and is – a long-standing moral panic about the reproduction rates of these ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate’ people. If something was not done, ‘They’ would overwhelm ‘Us’. The human species would decline as ‘inferior’ people took over.”
“It was this terror of being ‘outbred’, ‘outnumbered’, ‘diluted’ that inspired the eugenics movement. A similar set of claims persists to this day, and is popular among white supremacists. It’s called Replacement Theory.”
I agree! But then, why does Monbiot still adhere to the ridiculous beliefs of the pro-abortion movement? The movement was SPAWNED BY THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND IS NOTHING BUT EUGENICS ITSELF. According to an article on Arizona Capitol Times, quoting a 2011 CDC report on Abortion Surveillance, “black women make up 14% of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country.”
And if you remember, I talked about how the NAACP has long stopped caring about black people because of their support for Planned Parenthood. In that article, I mentioned how abortion was the leading cause of death for black people, 1,800 black babies are aborted every day, 52% of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and that “79% of [PP’s] surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
So why does this guy openly abhor the practice of eugenics, yet at the same time, claim to support “women’s rights” to practice such eugenics? The guy either is ignorant of the eugenics that is abortion or is a hypocrite.
But moving on, Monbiot reaches his conclusion:
“So what is the disturbing conclusion to this thread? The answer to my question – ‘why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ – is… racism.”
“I’m not saying this to cause offense. I’m saying it because it appears to be the most likely and parsimonious explanation of a bizarre phenomenon: affluent people with enormous impacts pointing the finger at poor people with tiny impacts.”
“Nor am I claiming that most of those who over-emphasize population are intentional racists. I think it is possible to entertain subconscious racist beliefs without actively wishing to discriminate against people of color.”
In short, his reasoning behind the affluent white people’s desire to control population growth is racism, be it intentional or not. I agree, but let’s not get things twisted here. Only ONE side of the political spectrum espouses such beliefs. Only ONE side advocates for eugenics of abortion and population control. Only THE LEFT believes in controlling populations for “the environment” (though we know perfectly well it’s for control and power as part of their communist ideal).
The rich, white liberal is the one that wishes to control population sizes wherever it might see fit. It’s no surprise, then, that a rich (for the time), white liberal by the name of Margaret Sanger once wrote to her friend Clarence Gamble that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
THE LEFT has idealized means of controlling various populations, be it through slavery, economic welfare (like today), abortion (like today) or other population control measures. Which is why it’s so funny to read the following from Monbiot:
In his lambasting review of Moore’s film, Monbiot writes: “When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, ‘it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far-right loves this film.”
“Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarch power, capitalism.”
As I said, it is THE LEFT that espouses the eugenic belief of population control, not the Right or the “far-right.” Wanna know why the “far-right” likes Moore’s film? Because it DESTROYS the environmentalist movement’s arguments towards “clean” energy that isn’t clean whatsoever. Moore, in that film, said what the RIGHT has been saying for DECADES. Moore’s solution, however, is not something any conservative would want and is something only a LEFTIST would agree with, even if not this particular Leftist in question.
Again, the LEFT has been espousing and practicing the belief of eugenics. To blame CAPITALISM for a NATURAL occurrence of climate change is asinine. Don’t forget, the guy was discussing things in terms of anthropogenic climate change being real and being a problem. It isn’t. It’s a hoax. Climate change happens because ours is a dynamic climate. But we do not affect the climate at any rate, let alone at the rate that the environmentalist wackos claim we do. Which is another reason as to why we ABHOR population control, because it’s an inefficient non-solution to a non-existent problem that only leads to death and desolation, no matter the population being targeted.
But regardless, I am always happy to see some blue-on-blue fighting. Wrong as I may believe both are to different extents, it’s good to see this happen whenever it does.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Former President Obama’s role in the Russia hoax was revealed last week, as you probably know already, through the Motion to Dismiss charges against General Michael Flynn document: we now know Obama was the one giving direction to his FBI to target General Flynn, and pursue the Russia narrative.
The document released last week shows that the Obama FBI began an investigation on Flynn back in August 2016, before the Presidential election, because Gen Flynn was “cited as an adviser to the Trump team on foreign policy issues February 2016; he has ties to various state-affiliated entities of the Russian Federation, as reported by open-source information; and he traveled to Russia in December 2015, as reported by open-source information.”
The document also shows that at a January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Obama had asked Comey and Yates to “stay behind.” Obama told them he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russian diplomat Sergeiy Kislyak, where they discussed sanctions his administration had levied against Russia. The former President said he “did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.”
Just as a side note here, please remember there’s nothing wrong with an incoming Administration having contacts with Foreign Diplomats as a way to understand each other's priorities and begin a diplomatic relationship.
But let’s go back to the document. In it we read “Yates had no idea what the president was talking about, but figured it out based on the conversation. Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act, but can’t recall if he specified there was an ‘investigation.’ Comey did not talk about prosecution in the meeting. It was not clear to Yates from where the President first received the information. Yates did not recall Comey’s response to the President’s question about how to treat Flynn. She was so surprised by the information she was hearing that she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time,”
So the cat’s out of the bag now. What do we do?
We know and have evidence that proves former President Obama was the mastermind behind the Russia hoax and knew all along that there was nothing wrong with the conversation between Gen Flynn and Kislyak, but nevertheless they conspired to set Flynn up to eventually destabilize the Trump Administration.
We know now that under oath, nobody from the Obama FBI said they had seen any evidence whatsoever of Russia collusion. Yet, when going to the Fake News Media for interviews, they implied that they did. This, naturally, is a plot or conspiracy to overthrow a duly elected president. And we now know that former President Obama was not just aware of what was going on, but actually directed it.
Will Obama EVER be indicted? Will he EVER be punished?
Some say that it’ll never happen because we just don’t do this type of thing to former Presidents.
But is this true? Is this who we are? Can Obama go shoot someone dead, the DOJ have evidence of it, and still not prosecute? Because that’s essentially what’s happening here. We have evidence now that Obama was behind the Russia Collusion hoax all along, in a coup attempt. This is criminal. Like Rudy Giuliani said, it’s as close to treason as you can get. Is Obama going to get away with it?
I don’t know the answer to this question. But I know this: releasing these documents without any intention whatsoever to get to the bottom of this and prosecute everyone involved makes no sense to me. Up until now, most of us suspected Obama HAD to be involved. But now we know. Not only do we know, but we have EVIDENCE that proves his culpability. Is AG Barr NOT going to act upon it?
Let’s pray that AG Barr gets the wisdom and strength that he needs to do what’s right in the sight of God. He was raised to this position for a reason. He needs to do his job to the best of his abilities, and in this case, he needs to put together the case to prosecute everyone involved, even if one of them is a former President. The fact that we haven’t done anything like this in the past is no excuse not to act now if there’s sufficient evidence.
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin”
Author: Danielle Cross
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...