Back in late October, the Trump administration greenlit an operation to kill the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which resulted in a raid on his compound and the terrorist to blow himself up (alongside three of his children) to avoid being killed or arrested by U.S. forces. Following this raid, the Left went into a fit because we killed the leader of ISIS, proving even more that they are adamantly against the United States.
In early January of 2020, following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, which was orchestrated by Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who once visited the Obama White House and has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, the United States used an MQ-9 Reaper drone to fire missiles at a convoy of terrorists leaving Baghdad International Airport. This strike not only killed dozens of terrorists, but it has been confirmed now by State Department officials that one of the deaths was the aforementioned general Soleimani.
Retired Lt. Col. James Carafano said: “The reported deaths of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani and the Iraqi commander of the militia that killed an American last week was a bold and decisive military action made possible by excellent intelligence and the courage of America’s service members. His death is a huge loss for Iran’s regime and its Iraqi proxies, and a major operational and psychological victory for the United States.”
Phillip Smyth, an expert on Iran-controlled Shia militias and the Middle East at the Washington Institute said: “This is a major blow. I would argue that this is probably the most major decapitation strike the United States has ever carried out… This is a man who controlled a transnational foreign legion that was controlling governments in numerous different countries… He had a hell of a lot of power and a hell of a lot of control. You have to be a strong leader in order to get these people to work with you, know how and when to play them off one another, and also know which Iranians do I need within the IRGC-QF (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a designated terrorist organization), which Lebanese do I need which, Iraqis do I need… that’s not something you can just pick up at a local five and dime. It takes decades of experience.”
Other military experts agreed that the killing of Soleimani was more significant than bin Laden or al-Baghdadi.
The Pentagon said in a statement: “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the nation. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
The Pentagon also said that Soleimani had orchestrated numerous attacks on U.S.-led coalition bases in Iraq over the last few months, including an attack on December 27th, which killed an American contractor and wounded U.S. servicemembers as well as Iraqi personnel.
Carafano also said: “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps… led by Suleimani, was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans in Iraq between 2003-2011, and countless more injured. He was a chief architect behind Iran’s continuing reign of terror in the region. This strike against one of the world’s most odious terrorists is no different than the mission which took out Osama bin Laden – it is, in fact, even more justifiable since he was in a foreign country directing terrorist attacks against Americans.”
Suffice to say that Soleimani was an evil piece of crap and no one but the bad guys would miss him. Enter the American Left, the fake news media and even a Hollywood elite being adamantly against this operation to kill a top enemy of the United States.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) complained on Twitter: “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”
A couple of things to say about this. First, I don’t remember Democrats complaining when Obama didn’t notify them that we would be killing bin Laden. That’s because the Commander-in-Chief does not need to notify Congress that he is going to kill a terrorist. These idiots also complained that Trump didn’t notify them that he was killing Baghdadi. The reason being that he didn’t want the secret of the operation being spread, potentially saving Baghdadi and putting American servicemembers’ lives in danger. Granted, we used a drone instead of armed forces this time around, but we know just how partisan these people are. They would’ve blabbed about targeting Soleimani in an effort to save his life and keep Trump from scoring any political victory.
How do I know these people are partisan hacks? Aside from EVERYTHING they’ve done over the past few years, look at how these people are reacting to these news. Instead of being elated that an objectively EVIL guy is dead, they all let their Trump Derangement Syndrome take over and are DEFENDING Iran.
Just three days ago, and moving on to the second point I wanted to make, Sen. Chris Murphy also tweeted the following regarding the attack on our embassy: “The attack on our embassy in Baghdad is horrifying but predictable. Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us. America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away. What a disgrace.”
Three days ago, Murphy was complaining that we weren’t doing anything and claimed that America was “impotent” in the Middle East because of Trump (totally ignoring the fact that Benghazi was attacked under Obama’s watch and he did nothing to help there). Fast-forward three days and now he’s complaining about taking action against THE GUY WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACK ON THE EMBASSY?!
Not that I find this the least bit surprising. They will attack Trump regardless of what he does. He doesn’t do something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump is weak”. He does something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump just started World War III”. It’s all a load of b.s. and no one in their right mind would take these people seriously for even a second.
But moving on to the other anti-American traitors, we find none other than the Washington Post, the official terrorist mourning organization, reporting: “Breaking news: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports.”
Don’t know if this quite beats “austere religious scholar” but it’s an embarrassment that it can come so close. Soleimani, as previously explained, was not Iran’s most “revered military leader”. He was a terrorist piece of garbage responsible for the deaths of hundreds of servicemembers and possibly thousands of Americans. And the only ones that “revered” the demon were people within the terrorist regime.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shared a video on Twitter of Iraqis “dancing on the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more.” And why would they be happy at Soleimani’s death? Because he was also the guy responsible for the deaths and kidnappings of protesters that had been troubling the terrorist regime for years in the neighboring country (reportedly, he caused the deaths of upwards of 500 people and injured another 20,000 protesters). We killed the guy who helped oppress the people of IRAQ and the people of Iraq are thankful.
Of course, this doesn’t stop the Left from further trying to paint Trump as a “warmonger” who just ignited the third World War and are cowering at what Iran might do in retaliation (because they were clearly oh, so peaceful before we killed Soleimani).
Despite the very clear evidence that Soleimani was a terrorist and that this was an attack in response to him ORCHESTRATING an attack on OUR embassy, the Left says that this is an act of war. By no means. This is an act of self-defense as a result of that attack on our embassy. It is an act of retribution for the THOUSANDS of American, not to mention Iranian and Iraqi lives, that he helped to take. It is an act of strength to show the terrorist regime that Obama is not president anymore and they can’t get away with whatever they want anymore.
This will not lead to World War III. I doubt this will even lead to full-blown war against Iran. Richard Engel said that “Iranians will consider US killing Soleimani an act of war. A proxy war could erupt. Likely in Iraq, but also a danger in Lebanon and Israel. This is a big escalation.” To which I say: Soleimani was already orchestrating numerous proxy wars in the region anyway. I don’t care if they consider this an act of war or an act of crapping on their sandwich; they will say whatever they want to justify further actions (and the media will be delighted by such actions). At most, this would cause a proxy war, but nothing more severe than that. If Iran actually had the means to fight us in a war, there’d be nothing stopping them from doing so. Unlike ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorists, Iran can’t go into hiding.
Now, Leftists could say: “See? This will only make things worse. This will cause the Iranians to attack us.” They were already attacking us and they have been FOR DECADES. It’s not like Trump attacked the Iranians unprovoked. They have been pulling crap against us, plotting and funding terrorist acts against us for decades at this point, pretty much since the Mullahs took over in 1979. Killing Soleimani will help deter future terrorist acts simply due to how many he was responsible for and was in the process of planning.
But what is perhaps the worst part of the Left’s clear betrayal of this country was something that actress Rose McGowan tweeted:
“Dear Iran, the USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.” She also tweeted a gif of what appears to be an Iranian flag, but edited to have a sun emoji and a lion emoji in the middle part, for some reason.
But regardless of that strange gif, it is pretty clear how spineless the Left is. Thankfully, McGowan does not represent the U.S. and the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are happy that a terrorist is dead. One Twitter user, who claims to be Iranian, replied to her: “I’m Iranian by birth. Iranians are happy. Do you realize that this guy was [a] psychopath? Part of a group that tortured, raped, sodomized its own citizens? Do you have any f***ing clue or do you just want attention? Soleimani makes Harvey Weinstein look like a saint. Let that sink!”
I would assume McGowan wants as much attention as Jane Fonda did by siding with the Vietcongs. Back then, it was Hanoi Jane. Today, we have Tehran McGowan, it seems. These idiot Leftists have zero clue what they are talking about and most likely have never even heard of Soleimani before recently, otherwise, they really wouldn’t be calling Trump’s administration the “terrorist regime” here.
The Left does not support the United States. They hate it when we succeed. They hate it when we win at any capacity. They think we should be groveling on the ground, begging for other countries’ “forgiveness” for our “past sins” and “transgressions”. If you need any more proof that the Left hates this country, look at what they are doing right this moment.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
All things considered, almost all of the stories I write about showcase the Left’s twisted logic and ideals, whether it be relating to climate change or transgenderism or socialism, etc., we really are in no short supply of such stories. But I would like to point out two particular recent stories that really put into perspective just how twisted the Left’s logic and ideals are and how truly evil they are.
Let’s begin with MSNBC’s Joy Reid hoping that the raid on the Baghdad embassy would have turned like Benghazi.
For a bit of context, if you haven’t been playing very close attention to the situation, Hezbollah supporters attempted to raid the U.S. embassy in Baghdad because of an attack that successfully eliminated dozens of terrorists from Kataeb Hezbollah (and the fake news media, always siding against the U.S., opted to call them “protesters” and “mourners” instead of terrorist-sympathizers and supporters).
What Joy Reid did was reply to a tweet from a bot account that noted the fact that Trump had tweeted on Tuesday: “Read the Transcripts!” in relation to the transcripts of the July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky (though not sure why this was tweeted, since the impeachment story died pretty much as soon as the House voted to impeach Trump). Reid’s reply read as follows: “As Trump’s Benghazi unfolds in Iraq…”
Keep in mind that the embassy in Baghdad had diplomats and servicemembers trapped in there for hours and they were threatened with actual violence, as the “protesters” outside were chanting the usual “death to America” chants, as well as “down, down USA” and “death to Israel” chants. They could’ve caused some serious damage and actually might’ve killed some people, but Trump, unlike Obama, actually sent reinforcements to help and drive away the mob.
It’s worth mentioning the massive backlash that Reid received from a number of different people.
Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ was handled with decisive action, like an actual leader would respond. The response (since they actually bothered to respond, unlike Obama/Crooked [Hillary]) was really the anti-Benghazi response! You’re welcome.”
Former CIA officer Bryan Dean Wright (who is a Democrat, to be fair, though you wouldn’t know it from this) tweeted: “’Trump’s Benghazi’ is now ending with no dead Ambassador, no dead service members, and the enemy withdrawing. A disappointing conclusion for Joy Reid and The Resistance, no doubt, but a great day for America.”
Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted: “What’s wrong with you? Is partisan hatred really that deep? We root for American soldiers, not against them.”
Yes, her partisan hatred is that deep that she would gladly trade away the lives of multiple service members and diplomats in exchange for the opportunity to attack Trump on what would’ve been his Benghazi if he weren’t an actual leader and an actual president, unlike the last one.
Trump actually sent help because he doesn’t hate this country and those who serve it, unlike Obama, who left four Americans for dead in Benghazi. But Leftists like Joy Reid were really hoping this would turn out like Benghazi, if not far worse with considerably more bloodshed, all for the opportunity to politicize the ever-living crap out of it and use it as a weapon against Trump’s reelection.
To the Left, if a Republican is in the White House, particularly one that they really hate and isn’t willing to kiss the ground they walk on, it’s worth it to sacrifice the lives of our OWN SOLDIERS and diplomats if that’s what it takes to score a political victory. The deaths of everyone inside that embassy would’ve been worth it if the fake news media got to talk about it at length all throughout 2020 to try and get Trump out of the White House.
This is only one of the many examples of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. But let us now move on to the next one.
This one is less of a story and more of an opinion piece as a result of a particular story. If you remember, I recently wrote an article about “Why People Have The Right To Defend Themselves” and in that article, I talked about a recent shooting in a Texas church that was thwarted thanks in part to a firearms instructor who shot the shooter and prevented more blood from being shed that Sunday morning.
Something I failed to mention in that story is the fact that, while the hero, Jack Wilson, was the one to stop the shooter, at least SIX other churchgoers were seen on video having pulled out their own guns and looking for the shooter, showing the restraint to not shoot randomly and risking causing more damage. So, at the very least, there were SEVEN people with guns in that church (not counting the shooter, who was a convicted criminal with no legal right to own guns and yet, still had one) and an opinion writer for USA Today thought it was “terrifying” that there would be any churchgoers aside from a firearms instructor who were carrying guns inside the church.
Yeah, the op-ed writer said it was “terrifying” that Christians were able to DEFEND THEMSELVES inside a church.
Elvia Diaz, the op-ed writer, wrote: “Texas has one of the nation’s least restrictive gun laws, including allowing armed security at houses of worship and allowing parishioners to bring their weapons to church. Gun advocates didn’t waste any time after the recent church incident to promote the idea of arming oneself.”
She writes that like the idea of arming oneself is bad, but that’s probably what she actually thinks. She thinks it’s bad that people are able to defend themselves, which is what I said in the beginning of that aforementioned article regarding people having the right to defend themselves: “People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion…”. That is literally the first two sentences of that article and Diaz is THE example of the kind of person I talked about there.
She doesn’t think people have the right to defend themselves and finds it “terrifying” that they do. Regardless, she continued: “The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. And that isn’t going anywhere. But that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere.”
Two points to make here. First of all, the argument of “the Founding Fathers never pictured assault weapons when writing the Second Amendment” is extremely stupid. Of course they didn’t picture it. THEY HADN’T BEEN INVENTED YET. But at the same time, they never specified that the people could only have a particular firearm BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again because it bears repeating: the Second Amendment wasn’t created for people to go hunting. It wasn’t created for people to protect their homes (though that’s a side benefit). It was created for people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. “Spelling out the types of firearms Americans should bear” would go against the Founding Fathers’ intentions. They wanted an American populace to be able to defend itself against a tyrannical government should the need arise. Back then, just about everyone had muskets, pistols and horses, whether they be soldiers or farmers (and the soldiers back then, at least a good number of them, were farmers). The Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and if they could’ve envisioned the creation of “assault” weapons like the ones we have today, they would’ve allowed for people to have them.
Secondly, it does give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere. Existing laws in the books are what prohibit such a thing, for the most part, and even then, not entirely. Americans (with the legal ability to sell guns) have the right to sell them to just about anyone (who passes background checks and the like) to carry anywhere they are allowed to (not in gun-free zones, but that sure as hell doesn’t stop bad guys from doing it, which is why gun-free zones are idiotic and dangerous).
But regardless of these arguments, Diaz actually inadvertently makes a case AGAINST GUN CONTROL in her op-ed: “Sunday’s shooting isn’t just about Jack Wilson’s heroism. It’s about how [the shooter] got a hold of a weapon in the first place, given his criminal record.”
She accidentally recognizes that gun laws in place aren’t going to keep CRIMINALS WHO, BY DEFINITION, DON’T OBEY THE LAW from obtaining guns and using them at their pleasure. Again, the shooter was a criminal BEFORE the shooting, and didn’t have a right to own a weapon, and yet, because he is a CRIMINAL, he had one anyway and intended to use it against churchgoers and cause as much damage and pain as possible. No gun law that exists today or could be conceived would’ve prevented the shooting in that church. But a good guy with a gun, and if need be, several other parishioners willing to defend themselves and their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, kept that shooting from being one of the worst ones in recent time.
The Left vehemently denies the power of the good guy with a gun EVEN WHEN TALKING ABOUT A STORY WHERE SUCH A GUY IS PRESENT.
Suffice to say that USA Today received major backlash for this piece.
Evan Todd, a survivor of the Columbine shooting, tweeted: “I stared down the barrel of a gun at Columbine, where 13 people were murdered and almost 30 wounded. I wished then and now that we had a Jack Wilson that fateful day. The world would be a better place if there were more men and women like Jack Wilson…”
Michael Malice tweeted: “Freedom is terrifying, insists the enemy of the people… This is the entire point of concealed carry, that murderers et al don’t know who around them is packing.”
Congressional candidate Lisa Sutton tweeted: “What’s terrifying is your attempt to downplay a heroic act by law abiding Americans, who were focused on stopping an evil person from inflicting harm upon others.”
Diaz found it “terrifying” that there were people in that church who were not firearms instructors and had access to guns. She writes that, while much is known about Wilson, nothing is known about the other parishioners who were seen wielding weapons. Why does it matter whether anything is known about them? THEY DIDN’T FIRE A SHOT AND THEY WEREN’T THE CRIMINAL! Jack Wilson stopped the shooter, so it makes sense to find out about him. The shooter was the evil s.o.b. that intended to kill many people that day, so it makes sense to find out about him. But why would it be important or necessary to find out about the others who were only ready to fight if they had to?
Again, they showed restraint and didn’t fire a single shot, not wanting to cause harm to anyone. That tells me that they have undergone at least some training with their firearms to be comfortable wielding them while also being extremely cautious. This is what JUST ABOUT EVERY LEGAL GUN OWNER DOES! The Left tries to paint legal gun owners as people who are just as sick and depraved as those who would shoot up schools, churches, etc. when reality is the exact opposite. Want to know what a legal gun owner looks like? Look at the people of the church in White Settlement. One of them acted and fired upon the shooter once he confirmed who it was. The other six were ready to join the fight if necessary but kept themselves from causing unnecessary harm to anyone. THAT is a gun owner, not the crazy demons that the Left makes us out to be.
But again, this piece is another example of the Left’s twisted logic and ideals. The writer of this op-ed found it “terrifying” that LEGAL GUN OWNERS COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP. She even tried to blame this shooting on Gov. Abbott and the law that allows for people to carry in a place of worship when it’s because of that law (and the Grace of God, of course) that the shooting didn’t turn out much worse.
Evil will always look to do evil; you can’t legislate it into non-existence. But you can allow for good people to do something about it and not constrain them. That’s what that law aimed to do and what that law successfully accomplished. But to the Left, that’s not a good thing in the least.
Diaz says gun advocates quickly jumped on that story to advocate in favor of gun ownership. And that’s true because THIS IS A PERFECT STORY TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO ARM THEMSELVES. As Diaz noted, the criminal had access to a gun, despite gun laws prohibiting him from doing so. This PROVES that criminals (since some people apparently need proof of this) don’t care for the law in the least and will do what they want. The best counter to such criminals is a good guy (or multiple guys) with a gun.
Think about the way shootings are prevented or stopped. When you hear of a potential shooting having taken place but was ultimately prevented, you hear of police or someone with a gun keeping the shooter from killing as many people as they could. The law is just a piece of paper that is utterly meaningless without those to enforce it. No law has ever prevented a shooting. PEOPLE have prevented shootings. More specifically, ARMED people have prevented shootings. And when they aren’t prevented, they are thwarted by such people.
This, in the mind of the Left, is not a good thing because it robs them of the ability to advocate for gun control, which only exacerbates the problem of shootings. These people are sick and twisted.
“Woe to those who call good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
In an article where I defended the idea of Christians defending President Trump, I noted how it was sinful to lie and to bear false witness against someone. In this case, I am certainly not surprised that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg would lie and bear false witness against the Founding Fathers, but I still feel the need to clean the stain that he is trying to leave behind.
Speaking to children in a school (making sure they grow up to hate America just as much as he does), Mayor Pete tried to convince the children present that the Founding Fathers were silly, ignorant troglodytes who did not understand right from wrong and did not understand that slavery was not good.
“Similarly, the amendment process; they were wise enough to realize that they didn’t have all the answers, and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery, or civil rights. It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing. They did not respect civil rights, and yet they created the framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution too and ensure true equal protection for all,” said the fake Christian.
While it sounds like he is praising the Founding Fathers in some places, he is doing nothing but passive aggressively insulting them when he is completely wrong about this.
Of course, the fake Christian Democrat was blasted online for his words, with people like historian and columnist Jay Cost saying: “The ignorance is astounding” on Twitter.
To further emphasize just how ignorant and wrong Mayor Pete is, he elaborated that the guy who wrote the Constitution, Governor Morris, “gave an amazing series of speeches in Philadelphia denouncing slavery.”
James Madison, on August 8th, 1787, made notes of the debates regarding the text of the Constitution featuring Morris and wrote:
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert ‘free’ before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south widely & every step you take thro’ ye great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
Suffice to say, as Madison’s own words can be considered, many of the Founding Fathers were vehemently AGAINST slavery and found it to be an abhorrent practice. When Madison writes: “Are they property? Why then is no other property included?”, he is basically talking about the discussion and debates they had been having over this matter. No one was debating whether someone’s house was property, or whether someone’s dog as property or whether someone’s furniture was property. They were debating whether slaves, fellow human beings who very much look like human beings, even if they have a different skin color, are property or are to be considered their fellow Man, and it’s quite clear where James Madison stood on this.
And Madison is far from the only Founding Father to hold slavery with such disdain. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most often demonized for having owned slaves at one point, had originally written this in a draft of the Declaration of Independence but eventually took it out: “He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”
Jefferson is charging King George III with waging war against HUMAN nature and violating the sacred right to life and liberty of PERSONS in Africa that he sent to the colonies to turn into the slaves of the highest bidders. If he didn’t consider African slaves to be people and humans, he wouldn’t have written this in his draft and the only reason I could consider for having taken it out is because some people were debating in favor of holding slaves and did not want that part in the Declaration of Independence, as it would’ve delegitimized their slave-owning practices.
In a letter to Lawrence Lewis on August 4th, 1797, our nation’s first president, George Washington, wrote: “I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery.”
Washington, by the way, was another target of the hateful Left as being demonized for having owned slaves at one point, but he clearly loathed the practice.
Our nation’s second president, John Adams, wrote on June 8th, 1819: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States… I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in… abhorrence.”
Our Founding Fathers minced no words about how they felt about slavery. Now, Leftists could say “but if they hated it so much and thought it so evil, why didn’t they do something about it?” and I’ve already explained elsewhere why this is: slavery, as a practice, was dying at the time, not to mention that they did do things to end slavery.
From December 2nd, 1793 to March 3rd, 1795, the 3rd Congress debated and eventually passed a bill to suppress slave trade and prohibiting the U.S. from trading with foreign countries. What’s more, multiple sessions in the Senate and House held debates regarding the abolition of slavery for a very long time.
For a time, the U.S. prohibited slave trading ships from entering and limited the number of slaves. Again, the practice was dying and Congress, at least the Senators and Representatives who wanted to end the practice and had the power to do so, worked towards killing the practice faster. The only thing that made slavery worse and caused a resurgence of it, particularly in the South, was the invention of the cotton gin, which made picking cotton (which used to be extremely difficult and hardly worth the hassle) a far easier thing to accomplish. This drove up demand for slaves to pick cotton and as a result, slave trade continued and, as I said, got worse until the Emancipation Proclamation.
The notion that our Founding Fathers “did not understand that slavery was a bad thing” is completely erroneous and ignorant. The Founding Fathers, particularly the notable ones, ABHORRED the practice of slavery and hoped that it would be put to an end one day, having done what they could with the time that they had. And the work they did in limiting and prohibiting slave trade would’ve been quintessential to ending slavery altogether in the country if the cotton gin had not driven up demand for slavery and caused Congress to amend and lift those prohibitions.
The Founding Fathers made their views on slavery perfectly clear and it is wrong for anyone, let alone a Presidential candidate, to smear them as these ignorant Neanderthals who hardly knew right from wrong and stumbled their way to allowing for future generations to change things for the better. Not that I expect any different from Pete Buttigieg or anyone else on the Democrat Party. Their hatred for this country, particularly for its founding principles, is no secret. Failed Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke also tried to smear the country’s very founding as racist and bigoted. No Democrat running for president, and no Democrat holding any sort of electoral seat, can be said that they hold any love for this country.
And with ignorant statements such as the ones by Buttigieg, it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people.
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion, choosing to live in a world of fairy tales where violence doesn’t occur and people are naturally good. That simply is not the reality we live in and as a result, people have to be able to defend themselves if and when the unimaginable does happen.
I say this largely because of the rather bloody and strange weekend we recently had. Let’s begin with the earliest story of the weekend, which is of an anti-Semitic attack by two women in New York (which ended an entire week of roughly 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the Democrat-owned state).
While this one did not really result in anyone’s death (thankfully), it showcases the need for people to be able to defend themselves regardless. A woman, Tiffany Harris, was arrested after having assaulted three Jewish women and shouting anti-Semitic slurs at them. She was then released by the NYPD without bail and was arrested once again in another assault against another woman (though it’s unclear if the woman was Jewish too).
Again, this one is not outright deadly, but it easily could be, particularly since the hateful bigot will not face any charges or punishment for her actions due to Bill de Blasio’s irrational “bail reform” laws that allow for the bad guys to be released extremely easily.
It’s not even as if the hateful bigot denied that she did it. She flat out admitted to the police upon her arrest: “Yes, I slapped them. I cursed them out. I said ‘F-U, Jews.’” She ADMITTED to the assault but the police could do nothing about it because of the idiot mayor’s pandering to criminals for votes.
While this case has a little less to do with the kind of self-defense I will be talking about in this article, it does relate to the sort of idiocy (at best) that fills the Democrat Party’s minds when it comes to legislation. Criminals and anti-Semites get to run amok in New York and de Blasio even has the nerve to try and blame this on Trump and on Rudy Giuliani (these things didn’t happen, particularly to this extent, when Giuliani was mayor of NYC). He’s a fraud and a danger to the people of New York City.
Regardless, let’s move on to another anti-Semitic attack that happened in New York, where a machete-wielding man attacked Jews in a Hanukkah party, wounding five people. The man was arrested and according to Rockland County Assistant DA Michael Dugandzic, he “was found with blood all over his clothing and a strong smell of bleach in the car, like he was trying to destroy evidence.”
Anti-Semitism has been on the rise in Democrat-owned New York, while the Democrats have tried to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the President and his “inflammatory rhetoric” despite the fact that it’s the Democrats in the House who failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because their openly anti-Semitic party members didn’t want to be singled out and Pelosi caved to their demands, switching from condemning anti-Semitism to condemning all hatred in general.
Again, the Democrat Party owns New York, where the bulk of this anti-Semitism is occurring. I don’t care whether or not you think Trump’s rhetoric is “inflammatory” (it isn’t), one cannot realistically blame Trump for anti-Semitic attacks when he has been the most pro-Jewish president in recent history. And for all the “anti-Muslim hatred” that he is accused of pushing, how come we don’t hear of stories where Muslims are targeted in anti-Muslim attacks? Not that I would want them to be, but the charge of Islamophobia is placed on Trump far more often than anti-Semitism, but we never hear of Muslims being targeted like this.
For all the charges of racism against Trump, we never really hear of anti-black attacks (unless they are made up stories like Jussie Smollett) or anti-Hispanic attacks as a result of Trump’s rhetoric. Granted, we also don’t often hear of anti-Semitic attacks largely because the media doesn’t care about them unless they are either fairly major (like the ones discussed) or can be blamed on Trump in some form or fashion. Again, the stories I talked about mark two of TEN anti-Semitic attacks in New York this week alone, but we have hardly heard anything about those other eight.
Now, moving on to the final act of violence that occurred this weekend, and what really drives the point of this article, let’s talk about the White Settlement church shooting that happened on Sunday.
During a Sunday service, a bad guy with a gun (who was a felon and wasn't legally allowed to own guns but still had them, further destroying any argument for gun control that clearly doesn't work) went into the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire on churchgoers. According to The Dallas Morning News, “one person died at the scene of the shooting, one person died en route to a hospital, and another person was transported to a hospital in critical condition. The shooter is believed to be one of those three people, said Fort Worth Fire Department spokesman Mike Drivdahl.”
The shooter was neutralized by an armed churchgoer, preventing the shooter from taking more lives than he did. This is thanks in large part to a bill signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last September that allowed for lawful gun owners to carry guns in places of worship. This law, by the way, was maligned by Democrats like Joe Biden, who said it was “totally irrational” to do that. It, in fact, is completely rational, as bad guys with guns will shoot wherever there are people to kill and will target people without guns (or people who worship God, if they hate Jews or Christians) no matter what the law says. This kind of law gives law-abiding citizens the ability to fight back should such a horrendous situation ever occur.
It’s for these kinds of situations that people have the right to defend themselves. Now, Leftists will still argue “if the bad guy with a gun didn’t have a gun in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”. True, but there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people. There will always be bad guys with guns, so no legislation in the world will get guns out of the hands of bad guys.
New Zealand implemented a “mandatory” gun buy-back program and it’s a complete and utter failure. California, the state with some of the strictest gun control laws, had EIGHT mass slayings in 2019, according to The Associated Press. The AP reports that a total of 41 mass slayings occurred nationally in 2019 (The AP defines mass slayings as killings were four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator). 33 out of those 41 mass slayings were firearm-related and, again, California was responsible for eight of them, the most out of any other state.
Despite the heavy gun control laws in places like California, Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc., we see some of the most bloodshed in such places. Now, Leftists could argue that if guns simply were not there, these things wouldn’t happen, which is altogether wrong. No shootings would happen, but killings would still occur. Just look at London and other places in the U.K. being ravaged by stabbing attacks day in and day out to find my words ring true.
Bad people will look for ways to hurt and kill others. Restricting good people from being able to defend themselves only worsens the problem and makes easy targets out of the innocent.
Had Texas not had the law that allowed for gun owners to carry inside places of worship, far more people would’ve died. The perpetrator had a gun and little was going to keep him from committing an act of violence. The little that keeps him from doing it is a good guy with a gun ready and able to fight back.
And returning to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York, do you think they would be anywhere near as bad if people were allowed to arm themselves? Recently, I had seen a picture on Twitter of Orthodox Jews openly carrying rifles in Rockland County (as seen above), the same county where the machete attack occurred. They have to protect themselves and have every right to do so, but New York laws restrict them. Of course, the particular Jews that were in those pictures do not have to worry too much about the existing gun control laws, but there’s no doubt that de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo want stricter laws which will only hurt the citizens of New York looking to arm themselves to protect themselves.
While the 2nd Amendment exists to protect people from a tyrannical government, a secondary benefit is that it allows for people to protect themselves against anyone who might wish to cause them harm, whether or not they are from the government.
The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well what tyranny looked like and wanted to prevent that from happening in the new country they had created. The 2nd Amendment was written and passed for the very purpose of keeping the government in check by We the People. The only reason this country isn’t far more authoritarian than it is is because of the 2nd Amendment, which is why it’s so heavily targeted by the authoritarian Left.
But the right to self-defense has existed long before guns were even a thing, as Jesus Christ Himself has advised His followers to arm themselves with a sword, even if it means selling the very clothes on your back.
We the People have the right to defend ourselves because the government cannot do a better job of it than we can.
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Not too long ago, I wrote three distinct articles discussing 27 total points surrounding the very same subject of the climate cult being dishonest and having inaccuracies in what they choose to call “science” (divided into three parts, with 9 points per part), largely because of Climate Depot’s “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” that they had passed around in a climate summit that was held in Madrid on December 10th. Following that, I did not really expect to find myself ADDING ONTO those 27 points by unofficially putting in two of my own, but here we are.
Point #1: according to Climate Depot: “Climate Related Deaths Down 99.9% Since 1932”.
Of course, from the outset, a couple of things can be talked about. First of all, what does it mean when they say “climate related deaths”? Well, this is taking things from the Left’s own vocabulary. You see, the climate cult often cries about how hurricanes are “proof” of climate change, or how they are becoming bigger, deadlier and more dangerous, or how droughts are a sign of climate change, etc., etc. Basically, anything that is related to the weather or is generally a NATURAL disaster, the climate cult considers it to be a “climate related” disaster and anyone who dies as a result of said disaster(s) counts as a “climate related death”.
So when Climate Depot uses that term, this is the context in which they are speaking. They are NOT climate-related things, as there is no link between extreme weather and climate change, but for the sake of the argument, we will use the Left’s own words against them.
Which brings us to the second thing to talk about and the most important point within this point. The amount of people who have died from extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. – what the climate cult would call “climate related deaths” in order to scare people into submitting to communism – has PLUMMETED since the year 1932.
The Cato Institute reported back in 2014: “In the decade from 2004 to 2013, worldwide climate-related deaths (including droughts, floods, extreme temperatures, wildfires, and storms) plummeted to a level 88.6 percent below that of the peak decade, 1930 to 1939. The year 2013, with 29,404 reported deaths, had 99.4 percent fewer climate-related deaths than the historic record year of 1932, which had 5,073,283 reported deaths for the same category.”
“The climate catastrophists don’t want you to know this because it reveals how fundamentally flawed their viewpoint is. They treat the global climate system as a stable and safe place we make volatile and dangerous. In fact, the global climate system is naturally volatile and dangerous – we make it livable through development and technology – development and technology powered by the only form of cheap, reliable, scalable reliable energy that can make climate livable for 7 billion people.”
Again, this was just in 2014. In 2018, according to Climate Depot, such “climate related deaths” further dropped to just 5,000, which is a 99.9% decrease since 1932.
As the Cato Institute notes, it is because of our ability to adapt to the climate and build infrastructure that can protect us and keep us safe that we can live in what is, by default, a dangerous planet. Like the Cato Institute said, climate catastrophists, or the climate cult, as I call them, believe the planet is stable, sustainable and safe and we make it dangerous, unstable and unsustainable with our technology and our capitalism. It is utter nonsense meant to sell people on the idea of communism (and unfortunately, it is working pretty well). But the opposite is what is actually the case.
One cannot tell me that, when Jesus and His disciples were on a boat during a storm, that that storm was the result of man-made climate change. Literally the only instance of climate change we see here is JESUS ordaining the wind and the sea to calm down. That is the closest the world has ever come to seeing man-made climate change, and it came from someone who is the Son of God, fully man and fully God (at the same time, but not in the same relationship).
That was roughly 2000 years ago, well before any of the technologies we see today – such as coal-powered engines, A/Cs, and all the other things the climate cult likes to blame for climate change – even existed. In that story, the disciples were scared that they would die, literally asking Jesus: “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” in Mark 4:38. They risked death at the time because they were on a fairly small, wooden boat that would not be able to protect them against such a storm and they were saved by the Lord Himself. In this day and age, we have much bigger and sturdier ships (that can still go down if God ordains it) that can sustain such storms with little problem.
The technological advancements we have made, thanks to the Lord, have allowed us to be better prepared for the naturally hostile environment in which we live. We have much better technology today as opposed to 1932, so it’s no wonder that “climate related” deaths have plummeted so much. But therein lies the dishonesty of the climate cult. They all blame our technology and our capitalism for the “destruction” of the planet when our technology and our capitalism has had the literal opposite effect, allowing for more and more people to survive. Climate cultists like Greta Thunberg “warn” about mass extinction, when nothing could be further from the truth.
But regardless, that’s the first point. Now, onto the second point, which relates to the reason I put “destruction” in quotation marks in the previous paragraph.
Point #2: according to notrickzone.com: “In the last 35 months, 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published containing documented evidence that undermines the popularized conception of a slowly-cooling Earth followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped recent uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.”
This sort of relates to one of the points made by the Climate Depot’s “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” that challenges the idea brought on by the climate cult that there is “consensus” surrounding climate change.
Taking aside the fact that consensus is, itself, not science, as there once was consensus that the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe, showing how irrelevant consensus actually is in the scientific world, the fact that 350 scientific papers denoting how the climate cult has it very wrong is further proof that there is no actual consensus surrounding this topic.
One paper published on the International Journal of Climatology reconstructed temperature extremes of the last 1200+ years in the northeastern Mediterranean region and found the following:
“[A]n analysis of instrumental temperatures for the period 1955-2013 shows that in northwestern Greece, statistically significant trends in summer temperature are absent… The cooling trend from 1950-1976, previously reported throughout the Mediterranean basin, was followed by an, so far, insignificant warming… Our reconstruction mirrors this absence of a clear positive trend at decadal scale… In total, 110 cold and 48 warm extremes appear in the 100SP reconstruction, and 105 cold and 57 warm extremes in the 10SP reconstruction… The year 1240 was the warmest summer, with reconstructed anomalies of +3.13°C and +2.64°C in the 100SP and 10SP reconstructions, respectively. The two coldest summers in the 100SP reconstruction are 1217 and 1884 with anomalies of -3.17°C and -3.61°C, respectively… The elimination of decadal trends in the 10SP reconstruction causes events to appear more evenly distributed. However, over the past 450 years the occurrence of warm temperature extremes is substantially less frequent compared to preceding centuries.”
In other words, as far as the Mediterranean goes, the temperatures seem to act fairly cyclically, with warmer and colder summers throughout, with no real significant trend that would point to any sort of major global warming or cooling. If this is the case for the Mediterranean, it’s a safe assumption that it’s fairly similar for the rest of the planet.
There are also other studies that show something similar: different warm and cold cycles either in different regions or in general. For the sake of brevity, I won’t quote other papers, but if you want to read them yourself, go to the link to notrickzone.com.
Basically, all of these papers contradict both the notion of a consensus and the notion that we are severely warming up our planet through our technological advancements and our capitalism.
All of that is utter b.s., but we knew that for some time now. It’s a safe assumption that whatever the climate cult claims, the opposite is probably true.
“An evildoer listens to wicked lips, and a liar gives ear to a mischievous tongue.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Searching through news articles and op-eds for me to find inspiration, I came across an opinion piece published on Scientific American with the following title: “Can Science Rule Out God?”, with the subhead reading: “We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins”.
Naturally, I became interested in what the author of the piece, a man by the name of Mark Alpert, had to say on this subject. The debate between science and religion has existed for centuries at this point since the Age of “Enlightenment” (I put it in quotation marks since it seems to have had just the opposite effect when it came to logic and reason).
From the outset, Mr. Alpert notes that he himself is not a religious man, does not outright believe in the existence of God as He is found in the Bible, but is not an atheist either, but something more akin to an agnostic (which has roots to the Greek word “agnostos” meaning “unknown” or “unknowable”, or in other words, basically means ignorant since “agnoia” means “ignorance”, so it is interesting that someone would be willing to call themselves “ignorant”). Mr. Alpert also mentions that for a decade, he had been an editor at the very scientific journal that he is currently writing for in efforts to expose “the falsehoods of ‘intelligent design’ proponents who claimed to see God’s hand in the fashioning of complex biological structures” like the human eye and bacteria.
Not quite sure what falsehoods he could be talking about with this. The only other argument here is that these complex things came about entirely by chance, which as I have explained time and time again, is nothing more than mathematical probability of an event occurring and it has no inherent power to act upon anything, but I digress.
Mr. Alpert eventually writes something that I found interesting. He notes that “as physicists investigate the most fundamental characteristics of nature, they’re tackling issues that have long been the province of philosophers and theologians: Is the universe infinite and eternal? Why does it seem to follow mathematical laws, and are those laws inevitable? And, perhaps most importantly, why does the universe exist? Why is there something instead of nothing?”
That last question is really what intrigues me (and the question about the universe being infinite and eternal, which I will get to). Indeed, why is there something instead of nothing? And here is where we arrive to one of three possible theories to explain the existence of the universe:
Theory #1: the universe was created by God, who is a self-existing, eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
Theory #2: the universe is eternal and self-existing.
Theory #3: the universe is not eternal but self-created.
Let us observe the objective reality that there is, indeed, something, as opposed to nothing. By sheer reason and logic, we can completely eliminate the third theory as a whole. Why? Because of two laws: the Law of Causality (or the Law of Cause and Effect, if you will) and the Law of Noncontradiction.
The Law of Causality is, as explained, the law of Cause and Effect. Simply put, this law means that every effect must have an antecedent cause. For a ball to move, force must be applied to it. Someone must move it themselves, be it with their hands or their feet, or simply a strong enough gust of wind or the force of gravity must act on it in order for the effect of motion to occur. Following Newton’s First Law, the Law of Inertia, an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force.
Every effect must have an antecedent cause and if there is no cause, there is no effect. The second of the laws I mentioned is the Law of Noncontradiction which simply states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Something cannot BE and NOT BE at the same time and in the same relationship.
For example, you can be a father and you can be a son at the same time, but you cannot be both at the same time and in the same relationship. You cannot be your own father and you cannot be your own son. It is logically impossible for such a relationship to exist. Another example would be that you cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. Or you cannot have a job and not have a job at the same time and in the same relationship, etc.
So why do I bring this law into the conversation? Because in order for the universe to create itself, it first must BE and NOT BE at the same time and the same relationship. It must exist and NOT exist, which is not physically or logically possible. In order for something to create anything, even itself, it must first BE. You cannot argue that the universe created itself because you would then be arguing illogically, as the universe must first have not existed and existed at the same time and in the same relationship.
NOTHING can create itself, as a result. It is logically, not to mention physically, impossible for something to create itself simply because it would have to literally defy LOGIC in order for this to happen. Not even God has the power to create Himself.
If there ever was a time when there was nothing, without the acting of an outside being that is self-existing and eternal, there would be nothing at this very moment. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So if there is SOMETHING, it absolutely could not have come from nothing, at least out of its own power. So the third theory is eliminated entirely.
So let’s move on to the second theory, which is something Mr. Alpert covers, even if unwittingly. Mr. Alpert writes:
“Cosmologists don’t know if the universe even had a beginning. Instead it might’ve had an eternal past before the big bang, stretching infinitely backward in time. Some cosmological models propose that the universe has gone through endless cycles of expansion and contraction. And some versions of the theory of inflation postulate an eternal process in which new universes are forever branching off from the speedily expanding ‘inflational background.’”
Such theories should be easy enough to discern why they might not hold up. If the universe is endlessly expanding and contracting in cycles, what is causing it and when did that start? To return to the Law of Causality, all effects must have an antecedent cause. If something, anything, including the universe itself, is expanding and contracting like a lung, then what is the CAUSE?
It is this very law that also eliminates the second theory. The very existence of the universe, the fact that there is something instead of nothing, is an effect. Again, out of nothing, nothing comes. Even those who believe in the second theory understand this principle and it is the reason why such people do not believe in the third theory. But the Law of Causality also throws a wrench at the second theory. The existence of the universe, being an effect, must have an antecedent cause.
Funny enough, even Mr. Alpert notes this: “But other cosmologists argue that inflation had to start somewhere, and the starting point could’ve been essentially nothing. As we’ve learned from quantum theory, even empty space has energy, and nothingness is unstable. All kinds of improbable things can happen in empty space, and one of them might’ve been a sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy, which could’ve triggered the inflationary expansion.”
A few things about this. First, I’m glad that he notes that cosmologists have enough logic to argue that this cycle of inflation (if true) had to start somewhere. That’s nice.
Second, and most importantly, suppose that the “sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy” is, indeed, what happened and caused this “inflationary expansion”. We return, once again, to the Law of Causality. What CAUSED that sudden drop? I don’t think I need to argue why a “sudden drop” is an effect. When you suddenly drop a coin, that drop had an antecedent cause. The same, therefore, must be applied here.
Which brings us to the first theory I talked about: the theory of a self-existing, eternal being with the power to create and manipulate energy and matter itself to create anything and everything.
Now, non-believing skeptics might argue “but doesn’t the Law of Causality apply to this theory too? You argued that an eternal, self-existing universe cannot be because of this Law, which says that all things must have a cause. Why is this theory, the one that points to an eternal, self-existing God, any different?”
The answer is simple: because the Law of Causality states that every EFFECT must have an antecedent cause. God is not an effect, but the antecedent cause. God is not a creation. He is not an effect, because if He were, literally nothing would make any sense. There’d be no universe and no intelligent being to understand anything for anything to make sense. God CANNOT be an effect and most certainly, He is not.
God is the antecedent cause in the Law of Causality. If you argue that the universe came about because of a “sudden drop” to a lower vacuum energy, one must still explain the cause of that sudden drop and the only feasible and logical outcome would have to be the acknowledgement of a self-existing, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being and there is only one such being that can come to mind, and that is the God of the Bible.
It is for this very reason that science cannot rule out the existence of God and those who adamantly deny the existence of God are not scientific. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. It’s for this same reason that it is up to the prosecution to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. It is not up to the innocent to prove their innocence (though exculpatory evidence should be looked for, but is not necessary), but for the accuser to prove guilt. One cannot prove that God does not exist, and by virtue of the things that I talked about, it would be illogical for people to say that He hasn’t been proven to exist, because He has.
Science can’t rule out God because God is FACT. Science can’t rule out God because without God, there’d be no science in the first place. There’d be absolute nothingness because ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is no God, there’d be nothing right now.
“For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
The last time I wrote an article of this caliber, where I discuss something being considered “racist” by the hateful Left, I talked about how one Leftist college professor put this charge (as well as the charge of sexism and violence) on beloved Nickelodeon cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants. But if you can believe it (I certainly can), the hateful, woke Left has added another thing to the list of “akshually” racist things: being nice.
I’m debating whether or not this is the dumbest one of them all, and I honestly think it is. Seriously, “being nice” is racist?
Well, it is according to a racial feminist group called “Race2Dinner”.
The group’s Twitter account tweeted the following: “White women’s obsession with ‘being nice’ is one of the most dangerous tools of white supremacy.”
Yeah, how dare white women be nice to people of color? Don’t they know they are supposed to treat them like crap because that isn’t racist, or something? I honestly don’t even know how you are so messed up in the mind to think this way.
According to The Daily Wire, Race2Dinner was created by two radical feminists Regina Jackson and Saira Rao. The two created the organization to “offer white women an opportunity to ‘smash’ their ‘white fragility’ by hiring women of color to attend dinner with as they’re guilt-tripped for all the alleged suffering they have caused them by virtue of being white,” reports The Daily Wire.
The Race2Dinner’s website has a message to white women too: “[W]hite women: We are talking about your complicity in upholding white supremacy and keeping us Brown and Black women down. Our goal is to reveal white privilege, power, control and your complicity in all of the above. You are an integral part of this system. Please use this power to dismantle the hate rather than to uphold it.”
It’s funny that their mission is to “dismantle the hate rather than uphold it”, calling on white women to do so, when Saira Rao once tweeted: “White people have done everything to make my life miserable. Yet I’m supposed to not hate white people?”
She essentially admits and justifies her hatred for white people, and yet expects white people to “work to dismantle the hate”. These women are a complete joke.
What’s more, they have another message to white women on their website:
“Dear white women: You cause immeasurable pain and damage to Black, Indigenous and brown women. We are here to sit down with you to candidly explain how *exactly* you cause this pain and damage. The dinners are a starting point. A place to start thinking through how you actively uphold white supremacy every minute of every day. What you do after you leave the dinner is up to you. Sincerely, Regina Jackson & Saira Rao.”
What they do after they leave the dinner is probably bawl their eyes out because they just spent an hour-plus long dinner (that probably wasn’t cheap) getting yelled at by some entitled young woman of color who thinks is the victim of some grand conspiracy to keep minorities down and being told that they themselves contribute to this pain and suffering simply due to the very color of the skin they were born with.
And you know exactly the kind of women who would attend these dinners: either liberal white women who agree 100% and hate their skin color or white women who mean well and honestly want to do what is right but get taken advantage of by said women of color in the way I just described and are left hopeless and distraught, being led down a path that won’t end well and will likely never want to have another dinner with said people or even have much contact with said people ever again, thus defeating the purpose of the dinner (or an ever worse scenario: maintaining contact with said people out of guilt and maintaining a relationship that is emotionally abusive).
And, of course, such a radical hateful organization couldn’t be without its fair share of hating on the United States, with tweets such as:
“Violent white people founded this country. Violent white people continue to run this country (see eg Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Mitch McConnell). When Black, Indigenous and brown people mention this FACT, we get accused of violence. Gaslighting is white people’s favorite.”
Extremely ironic for these people to accuse white people of gaslighting when there is nothing else that these people do. They accuse this country of having a violent founding and of people like Trump, Stephen Miller and Mitch McConnell of being violent too (interesting how they only mention right-wingers. Aren’t white people in general supposed to be blamed? Where are Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer?) despite the fact that they have ZERO evidence of this (and “violence” is far too broad of a term here).
I am not surprised in the least that such a hateful organization as “Race2Dinner”, whose entire point is to guilt-trip white women into hiring and having relationships with minorities, particularly women of color, also has such vitriol for this country. I wonder what they have to say about countries in the Middle East, many of whom treat their women as second-class citizens AT BEST and usually as complete garbage. How many videos are there on the internet of a Muslim man beating his wife or a female relative of his? How many of those videos have feminists decried as being “violent against women” (because they actually are violent towards them) and demand some sort of retribution?
These nutjobs hate the country that gives them the best opportunity to be themselves, to succeed and to be free. It’s insane. But regardless, that is not the main point of this article.
Again, they claimed that “being nice” is a tool of white supremacy. Now, in that tweet, they put “being nice” in quotation marks. But what exactly does it mean to “be nice” in the context in which they think? Is it just pretending to be nice? Or is it acting nice in general, but by virtue of their skin color, they cannot actually be nice because they are white and being white means being complicit in white supremacy?
Considering how out of touch and hateful these people are, I would wager that that last explanation is the correct one. Being white means that if you are being nice to someone, it’s just an act. And even if you actually and sincerely are being nice to someone, it means nothing because your skin color is, itself, a hurdle for any minority you come into contact with.
It’s ridiculous victim-mentality that we are seeing here. Is the world void of racists? Of course not (look at the very people I’m talking about to find this to be true, let alone looking at the whole of the Democrat Party). But to suggest that someone’s very SKIN COLOR means that them being nice to minorities is a “tool of white supremacy” is INSANE, let alone extremely racist. These people sincerely believe that white people are the reason for them to live “miserable” lives (Saira Rao claims this despite being worth $2 million and being a public figure in a like-minded group that probably praises her to high heaven, but then again, considering how full of hate she is, I wouldn't be surprised if she is miserable, but white people certainly are not the reason for it).
These are all people with nothing but hatred and evil in their hearts. They think the way to “end white supremacy” is to lambast white women during dinner and tell them all their sins in that span. If I were a woman, I would HATE to have dinner with the devil. Heck, I’m a guy and I wouldn’t want to spend my time with someone who yells at me because of things that are out of my control. What reason do I have to spend time with such an emotionally abusive person?
But, again, I’m the type of person that wouldn’t do that, but there are plenty who would because they feel this thing that they call “white guilt”. They have been conditioned to believe that their skin color is evil in and of itself and that there is something inherently wrong with being white and that it causes non-white people pain and suffering just due to the EXISTENCE of white people.
These people are the very hate that they claim to fight against, even to the admission of Rao. They practice, unsurprisingly, the antithesis of Jesus Christ. Whereas Christ taught us to love and pray for our enemies, these people teach others and themselves to hate their enemies and to make their enemies submit.
These people honestly revolt me and I pray that the Lord reaches their hearts, softens them, and they are rebuked of their wrongdoings and repent of their sins, leaving behind such hatred in favor of the love of Christ.
“’But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli
I’ve often noted the fact that the climate cult, the mainstream media and the global Left went from calling it “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to simply “Climate Change” because warming and cooling are literally the only two options for a world whose climate is not static and so that they could always be “correct” about their predictions (even though none of their predictions have come true).
Well, similarly, it appears as though “scientists” can’t make up their minds about what influences climate change and how climate change influences things, because different studies give very different warnings.
According to a recent WebMD article: “Obesity Epidemic May Contribute to Climate Change”.
“Rising obesity rates worldwide may be contributing to the climate crisis, researchers report… Obese people produce more carbon dioxide than those of normal weight, the researchers said. Also, obese people consume greater quantities of food and beverages that need to be produced and transported to them, and transportation of obese people requires more consumption of fossil fuels. This means higher carbon dioxide emissions related to food production and transportation for obese people, the study authors explained. The researchers estimated that obesity contributes to an extra 700 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions per year worldwide, or about 1.6% of all human-caused emissions. Overall, being obese is associated with about 20% more greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) than being a normal weight, according to the study published online Dec. 20 in the journal Obesity.”
From the UK Times: “Research shows obese people are each responsible for more than a tonne of extra CO2 emissions a year. If you can’t stay slim for yourself, maybe you should lose weight for the planet. A new study has calculated that obese people are each responsible for more than a tonne of extra carbon dioxide emissions a year, roughly equivalent to going on a transatlantic flight. The research, published in the journal Obesity, finds that in total the extra food consumed by the world’s 600 million obese people has a carbon footprint on a par with that of the UK. Their increased metabolism also means that every year they breathe out extra CO2 equivalent to Sweden’s annual output.”
In an age when people get outright cancelled for “body-shaming”, I’m kind of surprised that “scientists” would claim that obese people contribute to climate change. So what are we supposed to believe? That being fat is “good” and “healthy” and “beautiful” or that being fat is “bad” and “killing the planet”? Of course, this is not a moral dilemma I have to go through because I’m not an ignorant person like most who would proclaim the same about obesity. Being obese is far from healthy and no, I don’t want to see some random fat woman in skimpy clothing dancing during a Lakers game. It’s disgusting and said woman should be ashamed of that and ashamed of the fact that she is unashamed of it. But in any case, being obese is not “beautiful” or “good” or “healthy” – it’s anything but. And by that, don’t believe I’m saying all obese people are ugly. What I am saying, however, is that obesity itself is not beautiful and it does not make anyone beautiful; if anything, it stands to detract from one’s beauty (as does being too skinny). It certainly is not “good” or “healthy” to be obese.
So for these researchers to suggest that obesity leads to climate change is kind of funny to me. But this leads me to the actual contradiction of the climate cult. If they believe that obesity leads to climate change, then why don’t we take a look at some other studies?
UK Guardian, 2013, “Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists – UN urges: ‘We must act quickly.’”
“America’s agricultural economy is set to undergo dramatic changes over the next three decades, as warmer temperatures devastate crops, according to a US government report.”
From the UN in 2018: “UN Warns Climate Change Is Driving Global Hunger”.
“Climate Change is among the leading causes of rising global hunger according to a new report released by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) this week. Pointing to extreme weather events, land degradation and desertification, water scarcity and rising sea levels, the authors show how climate change already undermines global efforts to eradicate hunger. Overall, the number of hungry people grew for the third year in a row in 2017, reaching a total of 821 million worldwide. The paper warns that this number will continue to rise if countries fail to tackle climate change and to build resilience to its unavoidable impacts.”
If obesity leads to global warming and global warming leads to hunger, doesn’t that mean that global warming is good and that this whole thing will take care of itself? Obesity is a bad thing and leads to the bad thing of global warming. The bad thing of global warming leads to the bad thing of global hunger. But if there are more hungry people, which is a bad thing, doesn’t that mean that there are less obese people, which would be a good thing, and in turn, there would be less global warming, which would be a good thing, and in turn, there would be less global hunger, which would be a good thing, and in turn, there would be more obese people, which would be a bad thing, and in turn, there would be more global warming, which is a bad thing and my brain hurts.
Do you see the flat-out contradiction I speak of here? If obesity leads to global warming and global warming leads to hunger, then hunger leads to less obesity and so on and so forth and I’m not doing that again. It makes NO SENSE for it to work this way.
Of course, there are other aspects to climate change that affect it (never mind the aspects that the climate cult believes affect it), but still, this is outright hilarious.
But wait, there’s more, because the Weather Channel hyped up a study that claims climate change leads to both starvation AND obesity: “Climate change will increase under-nutrition through increased food insecurity from extreme weather events, droughts, and shifts in agriculture. Climate change also affects the prices of basic food commodities, especially fruits and vegetables, potentially increasing consumption of processed foods… Under-nutrition in early life increases the risk of adult obesity.”
Okay, taking this nonsense seriously for a minute, let’s point out a couple of things. First of all, they keep talking about extreme weather events, even though there is no link between that and climate change. If there is no link, everything else in the argument false apart, so they have to continue pushing the narrative that things like hurricanes and droughts are because of climate change when they have no link with one another.
Secondly, if there is less food and the food available costs more and leads to under-nutrition, how can there be a higher risk of obesity? Let’s say that the final sentence, the one about under-nutrition in early life increasing the likelihood of adult obesity, is 100% true. That would be under normal circumstances where food is easily available in most countries, particularly the developed ones. If a kid is not fed an awful lot as a kid and grows up to become an adult with a job and the ability to afford food, then maybe there is a higher risk of obesity as an adult (again, assuming that claim is completely true). But these people are talking about a world where food is less available and far more expensive. As a result, there would be more hungry people and less obese people. So I don’t see how their claim that climate change can lead to obesity makes any sort of sense in this hypothetical world that they’ve created.
In any case, this is far from the only nonsensical claim that people have made with regard to climate change and the way people eat.
One study, which is sure to really get vegans to be even sadder than they generally are, suggests that vegetarian diets are more “harmful” to the environment and could contribute to climate change:
“In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie,” according to Climate Depot.
Another study suggests that humanity’s invention of agriculture leads to climate change, mental illness, obesity and other things:
“The shift from a hunter-gathering lifestyle to an agricultural way of life… has not just led to many of the environmental problems we face today, it has caused some of dire medical disorders, from infectious diseases and obesity to the mental illnesses that are rampant in modern, urban living,” according to the UK Independent.
Suffice to say that the study of the climate is filled with junk science fiction, with little actually being factual or logical.
“Righteous lips are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
It is always unfortunate to see when supposedly Christian organizations, be it Chick-fil-A or “Christianity Today” switch allegiances in support of Satan, but that is basically what occurred recently when the editor-in-chief attacked Trump’s morals and character and demanded that Trump be removed from office because of what LYING LEFTISTS have alleged about him.
Mark Galli writes: “The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.”
Do you want to know what else is profoundly immoral? Lying to people and bearing false witness.
Trump did NOT attempt to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to “harass” and “discredit” one of his political opponents. He asked Zelensky about an investigation Ukraine previously had of Hunter Biden and the company he worked for, Burisma, because the guy was making $50k a month in a job he did not qualify for and even ADMITS wouldn’t have gotten without his dad being Vice President of the United States. He asked about an investigation into Burisma that ended because Joe Biden bragged about WITHHOLDING AID TO UKRAINE IF THEY DIDN’T FIRE THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER.
He asked about the very real possibility of THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION abusing power to protect the former VP’s son. He asked about Crowdstrike and their involvement with Ukraine officials in an effort to further investigate foreign involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
To say that he attempted to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit an opponent is not only a massive lie, but defends the false witnesses during the impeachment hearing. HOW IS THAT MORAL?!
The answer is that it isn’t and this guy should know better, but he doesn’t.
Further, he asserts that Trump “has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals,” as though that speaks poorly of him. Do you want to know who has been convicted of crimes (or will be on trial for it)? Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign advisor for a few months before being fired, likely because Trump found out about his ties to Ukraine and his illegal business dealings; Michael Flynn, who was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI, even though Comey admitted he didn’t think he lied and simply did not remember things correctly, and even though the FBI held an interrogation of him under false pretenses where he didn’t have a lawyer because he didn’t think what he was going to say would be used against him in a court of law; Roger Stone, who was arrested and charged with procedural crimes (same as Flynn, though with more charges) and Michael Cohen, who violated campaign finance laws himself and lied about it.
NONE OF THESE DAMAGE TRUMP’S CHARACTER. They were all largely arrested, persecuted and subsequently prosecuted (some, not all) because of a rabid Left wanting to hurt anyone who was close to Trump. People close to Trump being sent to jail doesn’t make Trump a bad guy, otherwise we would have to claim that JESUS was a bad guy because John the Baptist, the Apostle Peter, and virtually every Christian who professed the faith were arrested and imprisoned.
Just because you or someone close to you is sent to prison, that doesn’t make you a bad or immoral guy. Plenty of innocent or good people have been sent to prison. Would this guy argue that everyone the Soviet Union imprisoned or executed was a bad person? How about Communist China imprisoning and executing people? They want to imprison the Hong Kong protesters who are fighting for freedom and liberty. Does that mean the protesters are immoral people?
Rome imprisoned and crucified our LORD AND SAVIOR. Clearly, the argument of “hiring and firing people who are convicted criminals” means absolutely nothing, particularly considering just WHO was persecuting them.
Not that I expect Galli to agree with me on this point anyway. Mark Galli is the same man who adored and lionized in the biography that he wrote of Karl Barth, a neo-orthodox theologian who excused Stalin's crimes against humanity due to the "intention" behind Marxism:
"[I]t is pertinent not to discriminate in our view of contemporary Communism between its totalitarian atrocities as such and the positive intention behind them," Barth once wrote. "And if one tries to do that, one cannot say of Communism what one was forced to say of Nazism ten years ago (this was written in 1949) - that what it means and intends is pure unreason, the product of madness and crime. It would be quite absurd to mention in the same breath the philosophy of Marxism and the 'ideology' of the Third Reich, to mention a man of the stature of Joseph Stalin in the same breath as such charlatans as Hitler, Goerin, Hess, Goebbels, Himmler, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Streicher, etc. What has been tackled in Soviet Russia - albeit with very dirty and bloody hands and in a way that rightly shocks us - is, after all, a constructive idea, the solution of a problem which is a serious and burning problem for us as well, and which we with our clean hands have not yet tackled anything like energetically enough: the social problem."
Basically, Barth excuses the atrocities that even he recognizes because it was for a "good cause". Hitler also thought he had a "good cause" and I will RIGHTLY talk about that monster in the same breath as Stalin. To see that Galli wrote Barth's biography and thinks highly of him (Barth also denied that the Bible was the Word of God and that the witness account of Jesus' resurrection was accurate, so the guy was not even a CHRISTIAN) makes plenty of sense, considering Galli is, in all likelihood, not a Christian either.
Galli then writes: “[Trump] himself has admitted to immoral actions in businesses and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud.”
Fellow Christians, it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that if you ever did anything immoral in your past, you cannot be saved whatsoever. Trump admitted to immoral actions in businesses and relationships with women. Clearly, there is no hope for Trump or any of us.
Trump does not remain “proud” of his past, otherwise, Melania wouldn’t still be married to him. There’s no doubt in my mind that he apologized to her and, more importantly, to God for his previous sins.
Thank the Lord that Galli is not God, otherwise, no one would be saved because there’d be nothing we could do. He chooses to judge Trump on something I’m certain GOD no longer does.
“His Twitter feed alone – with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders – is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused,” Galli wrote.
Hey, guys, apparently, it’s an impeachable offense if the President says stuff on Twitter that you don’t like.
Look, I don’t care if you like or dislike what Trump does on Twitter. But Trump does not “mischaracterize”, “lie” or “slander”. He points out the truth about people, he tells his side of the story (because the fake news media will lie about him constantly) and he will fight back against those who actually do slander him. And precisely because it is his way to tell his side of the story (basically his only way), virtually anyone who wanted to actually fight back against the Left and against the fake news media would do, say, and tweet the same exact things.
Laying down and accepting the libelous criticism you receive is not the Christian thing to do. Giving up to Satan is not the Christian thing to do.
Would Jesus do what Trump is doing? No, but if He were to run for POTUS, He’d be slandered and lied about EVEN MORE than Trump is. THE PHARISEES LIED ABOUT AND SLANDERED HIM IN HIS OWN TIME TO THE POINT WHERE THEY HAD HIM CRUCIFIED!
I’m not saying Trump is perfect, but those who whine about his Twitter antics miss the bigger picture and can, at best, be described as peacetime conservatives (if they are conservatives in the first place).
Galli then goes on to say how the impeachment hearings “made it clear” that Trump abused his power for personal gain and betrayed his oath of office. Allow me to return to the point about a false witness, because that is exactly what this guy and the “witnesses” during the hearings were doing.
The “witnesses” were not witnesses to anything. They did not witness Trump “abusing his power”. They were Leftist, elitist college professors who hated Trump. They were people who, at best, could only provide THIRD-HAND KNOWLEDGE about Trump and what he was doing. The hearings PROVED NOTHING which is precisely why impeachment became LESS popular AFTER the hearings.
Galli then ends by daring to say that Christians who support Trump should reevaluate their support:
“To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?”
A couple of points here. First, a “blackened moral record” means nothing if Trump is repentant of it.
King David had an affair with a married woman and then tried to cover up his immorality by sending the husband of said woman off to die at the frontlines of battle. Samson succumbed to temptation and slept with a woman who betrayed him and robbed him of the strength God had given him (temporarily). Saul of Tarsus hunted down and executed those who professed Jesus as the Messiah. Abraham got impatient with God and slept with his wife’s servant in order to have a child that was not promised to him. Solomon fell to idolatry. Peter denied Christ three times. Moses killed an Egyptian guard and fled justice for decades. Need I go on?
Look throughout the history of humanity and you will not find a single person who was free of sin, except literally Jesus Christ. EVERYONE has a blackened moral record, including me, including you, and including Galli. Romans 3:9-12 says the following: “What then? Are we Jews any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’”
President Donald J. Trump is a sinner. But guess what? SO IS EVERYONE ELSE! But that doesn’t matter if God has already forgiven us of our sins, through repentance. Only two people further condemn after repentance: Man and Satan. So it’s no wonder that Galli would continue to condemn Trump, despite his own iniquities.
If Christians “reverse course” on their support for Trump and await someone who does not have a history of sin, they will wait UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD. Only God is moral, only God is good, only God is without sin.
The second and final point I wish to make about Galli’s conclusion is that I find it interesting that Galli recognizes the evil that is abortion and yet, does not recognize that if Trump is brought down and defeated, that very evil will be unleashed and run amok worse than we have ever seen.
There isn’t a single person on the Democrat field that is against this evil of abortion. They all advocate and DEMAND abortion be easily-accessible, even in the third trimester and up until birth. Murder is the Democrat Party’s biggest agenda item and Donald Trump has been THE MOST PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT in recent history.
The Democrat Party is the party of Satan. With Trump out of the picture, they get to do whatever they want, pretty much. As much as I like Mike Pence and think he would make an excellent POTUS, he’s nowhere near as popular as Trump is. If Trump is removed from office, Pence likely would not be elected in 2020 and one of the Satan-worshippers would be.
This is what so-called anti-Trump “conservatives” and “Christians” fail to understand: get rid of Trump and the country belongs to Satan in the blink of an eye. This doesn’t just mean that abortion will be more rampant, but Christianity itself will be more heavily targeted and persecuted. For crying out loud, a man in Iowa was sentenced to 16 YEARS in prison for setting a pride flag THAT WAS HANGING ON A CHURCH on fire.
People might try and downplay the numerous conservative judges being placed by Trump, but it’s those conservative judges that can help Make America Great Again and keep injustice like that from occurring, because not only was that a clear violation of the 8th amendment, but also, the sentence was ADDED ONTO because it was considered hate speech by the Leftist judge, a clear violation of the FIRST amendment.
THAT is a far bigger threat to the constitution, the country and CHRISTIANS, than Trump asking for a foreign country to CONTINUE THE PREVIOUSLY HALTED INVESTIGATION THAT WAS HALTED BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL QUID PRO QUO BY BIDEN.
Charging Trump with immorality when LITERALLY EVERY CANDIDATE ON THE LEFT WANTS TO BRING ABORTION-ON-DEMAND AND PERSECUTE ANY AND ALL DISSENTERS is not only incredibly stupid, but not exactly a Christian thing to do if Trump has repented of his sins, as I believe he has.
But again, I doubt Galli actually is a Christian, considering he holds the socialist and unbelieving Karl Barth in such a high regard. Mark Galli has no moral authority to say anything about anyone, let alone Trump or any Christian who supports him.
“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I’ve said many times when discussing the prospect of impeachment, particularly since the process began back in October, the Democrats were stuck between a rock and a hard place (entirely because of their own actions and impatience) when it came to any potential vote on impeachment. Either they voted in favor of impeachment to please their base, despite the fact that the topic does not poll well and by the time the vote took place, most polls (even reliably Leftist ones) showed that people opposed impeachment more than supported it, or they voted against it and risked seriously ticking off their own base.
Either route would almost certainly lose them the House come next election, something even Nancy Pelosi was acutely aware of (and we’ll return to this shortly). Now, they’ve chosen what I personally had suggested: vote to impeach to appease your base. It will screw them over anyway, but at least their blood-thirsty base won’t come after them (or at least, the ones that voted in favor of impeachment, as two Democrats voted against the first article and three voted against the second article, with Tulsi Gabbard voting “Present” for both).
But with the impeachment pretty much over (either Pelosi sends impeachment to Senate, where Trump will be acquitted or she doesn’t send it to the Senate and absolutely nothing happens and Trump is still the president either way), some Democrat strategists warn that Trump absolutely could still win in 2020 despite being impeached.
“Yes, he can win,” said Democrat strategist Chris Kofinis. “And presuming otherwise is a recipe for repeating the mistakes of 2016. This isn’t a national election. He is going to lose the popular vote by 2 to 3 million votes, but the battlegrounds are still competitive and he won the Electoral College.”
More specifically, Kofinis said the POTUS could be reelected “because if you look at past elections, no incumbent president has lost an election with a growing economy and peacetime conditions.”
Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics also said that the 2020 election was “Trump’s to lose.”
“Trump wins if the economy and his approval ratings are about the same a year from now as today, and turnout is typical. But if the economy stumbles, his popularity flags or Democrat turnout is big, the Democrats win,” Zandi told Bloomberg News.
Now, I will make a few points here.
First, I will repeat a point I made some time ago when Pelosi said that “it doesn’t matter” if the Democrats lose the House in 2020. If impeachment were as popular as they try and make us, particularly Trump supporters, believe, then why would the Democrats lose risking the House?
Furthermore, if impeachment truly was the “winner” that the Democrats think it is and celebrate like it is (Merry Impeachmas, everyone!), then why would Trump be capable of winning in 2020? Not only that, they are saying 2020 is Trump’s to LOSE. Doesn’t impeachment usually mean a pretty bad thing for a president? Doesn’t it usually mean that a vast majority, or even a simple majority, of people want to get rid of the POTUS? So then why would Trump stand to win in 2020 despite being impeached?
This brings me to my second point and something that the Democrats don’t even want to consider: Trump won’t win despite impeachment. He will win BECAUSE of impeachment.
Granted, a strong economy and peacetime conditions will take Trump far and will likely be the biggest reasons for Trump to win reelection in 2020, as I have said multiple times in the past. However, impeaching a popular president will only HELP said president.
Usually, impeachment is a stain on a president and his presidency. It’s not typically a good thing for a president to be impeached. But this is not the case for Trump. It’s not a stain, but a badge of honor, for a number of reasons.
First of all, this was entirely a partisan impeachment. Only three presidents were ever impeached, and two of them were on a partisan basis. The other president to be impeached on a partisan basis was Andrew Johnson, whose impeachment we’ve already explained was a disaster and an example of what not to do with impeachment, largely because it was so partisan (although 17 members of the House chose not to vote, so we don’t know what way they would’ve gone).
Second of all, consider who is trying to get rid of Trump: the Deep State, the Washington Establishment. They’ve been trying to get rid of Trump since well BEFORE he even got elected. Let’s not forget the “insurance policy” the FBI was looking to get and the collusion the Clinton campaign did with foreign agents (British Oppo. Researcher Christopher Steele, Ukrainians, Russians, etc.) and with the Obama DOJ to try to steal the election away from Trump. Now, the same Washington Establishment has voted in favor of impeachment strictly along party lines.
Trump didn’t get impeached by elected representatives. He got impeached by partisan hacks in the Washington Establishment who have wanted this to happen since Trump got elected. He got impeached by partisan hacks who kept Trump and Republicans from being able to call in their own witnesses and demonstrate any semblance of fairness in the hearings. And now, those same partisan hacks demand Senate Republicans keep Trump from being able to defend himself, all in the name of “a fair trial” (by the way, a fair trial is fair for the defendant, not the accuser).
The Washington Establishment impeached Trump. That’s not a stain; it’s a badge of honor for Trump.
And now that the Democrats have voted against the American people, they will reap what they have sown. Again, if impeaching Trump had been as popular as they led themselves to believe and attempted to convince others (a CNN poll showed that DEMOCRAT support for impeachment fell from 90% to 77%, showing just how much this sham has backfired on the Democrats), they wouldn’t risk losing the House in 2020; they wouldn’t risk Trump getting reelected and actually being the FAVORITE to win the election.
Multiple elected Democrats and media people celebrated Trump’s impeachment after the House vote (and some were even close to celebrating as the first article got passed, until Pelosi hilariously reminded them “we’re supposed to act somber, not happy” about impeaching Trump), believing themselves to have done some sort of justice for the country or that Trump will be gone soon.
They live in their own world where they believe the vast majority of people agree with them and those who do not are so few in number as to be largely irrelevant. They don’t realize the landmine they stepped onto the minute Pelosi suggested they might begin an inquiry into impeachment.
That opened the can of worms that the Democrats will have to deal with next year because impeachment really was their only option, not because Trump actually committed any crimes or impeachable offenses, but because they either impeached him and appeased their base at the expense of ticking off everyone else and losing 2020, or they didn’t impeach him, ticked off their own base, and still lose in 2020.
They banked on finding something actually impeachable or criminal out of Trump’s July 25th phone call with Zelensky, or at least, find something along those lines with anything regarding Ukraine, just like they banked on finding something criminally wrong or impeachable with the Mueller probe. When that inevitably failed, they knew they still had no option but to trudge along and impeach, essentially being asked what kind of flavor of poison they would want to drink.
Now, I’m not saying Trump is guaranteed to win in 2020. The last thing I would want is for people to feel so sure about it as to be complacent and not go out to vote for Trump. That would be the only way for Trump to actually lose (assuming things basically stay the same for the next 11 months). One of the reasons for Hillary to have lost was that she herself was fairly complacent and assumed she would win. As history has shown, such arrogance can lead to terrible defeat.
While I spent the day of impeachment like it was any other Wednesday, we should keep in mind that the Democrats would’ve actually gotten away with this junk if they had had a majority in the Senate, certainly enough to convince NeverTrump Republicans in the Senate to vote for removal.
This impeachment was neutered because we all knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere solely due to the lack of votes in the Senate. But given the chance, the Democrats will take the Senate and get rid of Trump, so when the next election comes around, remember that the Left hates you so much that they would get rid of anyone they don’t like and FORCE you to live with it.
Recently, Trump tweeted the following picture:
And he’s definitely right. The Democrats didn’t impeach Trump because he did anything impeachable or criminal. They impeached him because they HATE the fact that YOU rejected them in 2016. The entire Mueller probe was a result of them refusing to believe that you would be so stupid (in their minds) as to reject them. “Don’t you know they are the best hope for America and that they only want peace and love and prosperity and equality? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THAT, YOU STUPID, INBRED NAZI HILLBILLY!?”
That’s basically what the Left is: they pretend to be tolerant but absolutely HATE YOU if you don’t submit to them. You refused to submit to them in 2016, so they saw fit to punish you as a result.
Come 2020, they will receive the biggest loss they have seen since 1984, provided, again, that you guys still go out and vote for Trump because they cannot be allowed to hold an entire nation hostage out of vengeance for the results of an election they didn’t like.
“A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
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...