text:
We've likely all seen Jim Acosta's video of him at the border, pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a crisis or emergency like Trump is talking about, but failing to realize that he is walking right next to steel slats much like Trump wants to build in much of the Southern Border. That gaffe has been rightly called a self-own.
But once in a while, you get a self-own so magnificent, you wonder if the person responsible for it has any idea what he or she has done.
While Jim Acosta made a short video about his own opinions on the state of the border, Vanity Fair writer T.A. Frank unwittingly made perhaps one of the best cases I've ever seen against Obama and Leftist policies.
Now, before you ask: yes, T.A. Frank is, himself, a Democrat.
Vanity Fair is one of the most Left-leaning sites out there, and that's saying a lot. Which is why it's so surprising to see them write the following piece and publish it on their site.
Frank's article is titled: "Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning On Obama's Legacy."
Pretty juicy and interesting title.
But it's what he says next that is even juicier:
"Obama was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal, but many of the country's most ominous trends also proceeded apace under his watch…"
That was his subhead.
Now, I won't go over everything in the article. He begins by talking about this difference in Washington between what is considered the establishment, which wishes to maintain the status quo (I would argue somewhat differently, but fine), and the radicals on both the Democrat and Republican parties.
Frank says that, while much of Obama's rhetoric was more on the radical Left of the spectrum, much of his actions were fairly establishmentarian.
He argues that when the establishment told Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan, he did just that. When "they told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed," he "hid them". When "they said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky", he "avoided it". When "they said that our trade agreements enriched the nation", he "promoted them". And when they "called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya", "he toppled its leader".
Basically, Frank argues that Obama was at the beck and call of the Washington Establishment and he would do pretty much whatever they told him to do, even though Frank also argues that Obama was not, himself, an establishment President.
Remember the days when the media would not dare attack or challenge Obama in any way whatsoever? They would stick up for him no matter what, so for this guy to be saying these things, even if Obama has not been President for two years, is pretty fascinating and unexpected.
Now, the reason Frank argues for saying these sorts of things is that 2020 Democrat candidates have to look at how to tackle Trump, whom he says is a wild card of a candidate. (He also says Trump is failing in countless ways, which I would strongly disagree with, but to each their own).
He argues that since Obama was so rooted in establishmentarianism, Dem candidates may want to look at what might be best for them. He says Elizabeth Warren might want people to think she's a radical and Joe Biden wants people to consider him the establishment choice.
As far as Warren goes, I don't think she has much hope of winning the nomination, if I'm honest. That DNA test result that she stupidly claimed proved her heritage when it did the exact opposite has seriously derailed any chances she may have had at becoming the Dem nominee.
Biden, on the other hand, might have the best shot out of anyone to be the Dem candidate, even if he is more of an establishment guy and many other Leftists seek a radical.
But here's the thing: like I said before, Frank makes the best case against Leftism as well.
There are two paragraphs I want to point towards, where he makes the best case against Leftist policies, even if he does not outright make any connections between a cause (Leftist policies) and effect (the negative things I am about to share with you).
Without further ado, here are the two paragraphs I'm talking about:
After talking about the differences between the establishment and the radicals in both parties, he writes: "Where does this leave us (Democrats), and what does it portend for Democrats in 2020? On the one hand, it's unfair to call Barack Obama an establishment president with all the status-quo overtones of the term. He gave us the Affordable Care Act, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform, an executive action for Dreamers, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a nuclear deal with Iran, diplomatic relations with Cuba, a climate deal in Paris, a New START treaty, a reform of student-loan programs, and two liberal Supreme Court appointments. On the other hand, many of the country's most ominous trends proceeded apace under his watch. The financialization of the economy kept increasing (whatever that means). Student debt kept exploding. Trade policy kept its same priorities. Opioid addiction kept spreading. Suicide numbers kept rising. Disparities in life expectancy between rich and poor kept widening. Union membership kept declining. Illegal border-crossers kept coming. Our defense commitments kept growing. In towns like Jasper, Indiana, and Mebane, North Carolina, factory workers – a hundred here, a couple of hundred there – kept losing their middle-class jobs, outcompeted by giant Chinese mills with appalling conditions."
"The concise and indispensable new book The Nationalist Revival, by the left-leaning John B. Judis, contains one especially haunting statistic: 3.4 million jobs lost to the growth of trade with China since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organization. For many of these forgotten Americans, Obama's final State of the Union address lauding a manufacturing surge rang hollow, and so did his vision of making 'change work for us, always extending America's promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people.' They had already heard, many times, that 'they may have to retool, they may have to re-train.' It was Bill Clinton, still a canny reader of the public, at times, who had to observe that 'millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it.'"
That is an awful lot to go through and I cannot possibly go through everything and still keep this article at standard length.
One of the main things I want to point out is that, in the first paragraph, as I have stated previously, Frank unwittingly makes the best case against Leftism.
He recognizes all the things that Obama was doing. And he also recognizes many of the ominous things that were happening in pace with the things Obama was doing. But he still somehow does not make the connection between the two of them.
What Obama was doing was choking the American economy and allowing for other countries to make deals with us where we would be utterly screwed. The Paris deal, as an example, is not something we needed to be a part of at any point. We were spending a ton more money as part of the deal in "fighting" climate change. However, with Trump pulling us out of the deal, we still manage to meet the expectations and requirements of the Paris deal WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR IT!
Another thing I want to point out which is interesting to me is one of the negatives he lists in the first paragraph. "Illegal border-crossers kept coming".
Not only am I surprised that he is using the term "illegal" because those who consider themselves to be "woke" would never use that term, but I am also surprised that he sees that as any sort of problem at all.
Given the current rhetoric of many on the Left, the idea of an America with open borders is enticing. And yet, Frank notes that this unlawful act is a negative associated with the Obama administration.
You don't see that very often. And, funny enough, it's yet another reason I cannot believe the guy is not making a connection between the things Obama was doing and the negative things that came along with those things.
Notice how many of the negatives he listed are slowly but surely getting resolved now that Trump is President. Trump, as many on the Left will note, is undoing pretty much everything Obama set out to do and actually managed to do.
Trade policy is different now than with Obama. Obama made sure other countries got the better end of the deal while the U.S. paid for it. Trump makes sure the opposite is true: we get the better end of the deal.
Illegal border-crossing, while that's still an ongoing thing and continues to escalate, is something Trump has literally based his entire campaign around. He won on the Wall. Even Chuck Schumer said that people voted for the Wall before he caught himself and rephrased it as "some people" voted for the Wall.
Trump won on the issue of addressing and fixing illegal immigration. And while Obama was dubbed the "deporter-in-chief", he hardly helped secure the border all that much more (even though he used to be in favor of building walls).
Wherever there is a wall at the southern border, such as San Diego, there is considerably less illegal border-crossing than wherever there are no walls. Jim Acosta himself showed that, as I mentioned in the beginning, where there is a wall, there is no crisis.
It's funny what happens when you get rid of the cause of some effects. The economic policies Obama enacted killed jobs, while the policies Trump has enacted have created them.
This is why I say Frank makes the best case against Leftism. Everything Obama did was Leftist policy. All of it. And what was the result? Jobs gone, people suffering, and America declining. Take away all those Leftist policies and what do you get? Jobs returning, people prospering, and America surging.
I have gone as far as to bookmark that article on Chrome to make sure to come back to it and point out that even one of the Left's own journalists has noted Obama's supposed accomplishments and the things that came with those accomplishments, even if he does not recognize their cause-and-effect relationship. According to the Logical Law of Causality, every effect must have a cause. Obama's policies were the cause. And indebtedness, joblessness, etc. were the effect. By eliminating Obama's policies (cause), you get the opposite results of more jobs, more prosperity, etc. (effect), which is exactly what President Trump is doing.
Thank you, Mr. Frank, for the truly great gift you have bestowed upon us. Here's hoping that if you're smart enough to recognize the bad things that came along the things Obama did, you will be smart enough to recognize the cause and effect of Leftist policies.
Proverbs 18:15
"An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week's articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Nearly Three-Quarters Of People Say Media Is "Dividing Americans" And Spreading "Hate"
If this article seems familiar to you, I would not be surprised. Earlier this month, I talked about a poll that said that 64% of registered voters "said the press has done more to divide the country than unite it since Trump took office…" That was from a Morning Consult poll from early November, but a different poll shows numbers that are somewhat similar, but with more people who think this way.
The Washington Examiner released a poll from Zogby Analytics detailing that "nearly three-quarters (72% specifically) of the country believes that the media is 'dividing Americans' along political, racial, and gender lines, a stunning condemnation of the press, according to a new national survey."
The survey question reads: "Do you agree or disagree: The mainstream media has played a major role in dividing Americans along racial, gender and political lines. This has led to a spread of hate and misunderstanding among some people."
The poll reads as follows: "Based on the results of the recent mid-term election in the U.S., in which the Democrats took back control of the House and the Republicans regained a majority in the Senate, suffice to say, Americans are politically divided. The country is also divided as to who should shoulder the blame: There are some people who feel racial, gender, and political issues are made worse by the coverage of the mainstream media, while there are others who feel the divide we currently suffer from is the result of President Trump's rhetoric."
At the end of the day, it really should come as no surprise to anyone that people consider the MSM to be so divisive, even more so than Trump. I made this point in the previous article talking about a similar poll, but I feel compelled to reiterate it: who can blame people for thinking this way?
Let's not forget that Don Lemon, in the same breath, called for (Republicans) to stop demonizing people and proceeded to demonize Republicans and Trump. Let's not forget that Donny Deutch, back in June, called Trump supporters "Nazis", a sentiment shared by everyone else in the fake news media, but not many of them dare go that far.
Let's not forget that Julia Ioffe, in the aftermath of the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting, said that Trump radicalized more people than ISIS did, followed by a half-baked apology later on that was insincere as Obama was when he said "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".
I made these, and many other points in that other article, so I do not need to bring them all up here once again. The point is that the mainstream media is a cesspool of hatred and division, not to mention hypocrisy in their honest belief that they do not divide anyone and honestly believe Trump and Republicans are the only ones dividing people. That's how delusional they are.
But returning to the poll, we find that 70% of men and 73% of women "were very much in agreement… about the role the mainstream media plays in dividing the public and spreading hate."
Interestingly enough, among younger demographics (18-24 and 18-29) "were much more likely to blame the media for spreading hate and misunderstanding than older voters age 65+ and age 70+."
According to the poll, among ages 18-24/18-29, roughly 81 or 82% strongly and somewhat agree that the media is to blame, with 18 or 19% strongly or somewhat disagree that the media is to blame. Among people aged 65+, 62% strongly and somewhat agreed while 38% strongly and somewhat disagreed. Finally, among people aged 70+, 67% strongly and somewhat agreed while 33% strongly and somewhat disagreed.
So while young people, very interestingly and surprisingly, more overwhelmingly believe the media is to blame, their older counterparts do still majorly agree that the media is to blame for our country's division.
In terms of party affiliation, it's no surprise that most Republicans (94%) strongly and somewhat agreed that the media is to blame. But perhaps relatively surprisingly, though not so much considering the results of the other poll from earlier this month, 51% of Democrats also agreed. If you recall, in the previous poll, the number stood at 46% of Democrats saying the media is doing more to divide the country than Trump. With Independents, 74% agreed that the media is divisive.
Lastly, in terms of racial affiliation, 76% of Whites agree that the media is divisive, 64% Hispanics say the same, and 54% of Blacks agree.
Now, I'm not going to say that this is all a jump in the poll numbers. While the numbers are larger (Trump had 56% of people saying he was divisive in the other poll, while 66% say so in this one), given that they are completely different polls, I can't realistically say that more people suddenly believe the media is to blame, while simultaneously, more people also believe Trump is to blame.
Granted, as time goes by, I would expect the media to get worse and worse in their supposed journalistic standards, and I expect such a number to rise, but one thing must be taken into strong consideration: the previous poll surveyed roughly 2500 people, while this one surveyed just over a thousand.
Such a major difference in survey size tends to impact the results of the survey, so perhaps we should not be so surprised that the numbers are so much bigger. Less people giving their opinion means that each opinion carries a bit more weight.
But still, the fact remains that these two polls show similar results, albeit with different numbers. Both heavily suggest that far more people in America believe the media to be the source of division in this country.
I already made the arguments as to why they find the media divisive, and even why they might find Trump divisive in that previous article, so I don't need to repeat myself here.
All I will say is, again, I do not find any of this surprising. The media may have, at one time, reflected the opinions of people. But that time is no more. The media is chockfull of agenda-driven narratives meant to SHAPE people's opinion, not reflect them. Let me tell you this: if the media reported anything with accuracy and honesty, we would not have half the problems we do in this country.
A big part of the reason we still have racial problems in this country is because of racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who go on t.v. and spread messages of hate and division. They insist that we are in as bad a shape in terms of racial equality today as we were before the 1960s, which is completely asinine and ludicrous.
They paint white people to be the same racist bigots that THE DEMOCRATS were (and still are, given how they still act) before the 1960s. Let's not forget that the Democrat Party was divided in terms of supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while Republicans were largely united in favor of it.
Because of this, they (meaning the larger mainstream media and not just the aforementioned racists) paint minorities as victims of largely fictitious hate crimes and injustices against them to the point where people think you not voting for a black socialist candidate makes you a racist because he just-so-happens to be black. To the point where minorities legitimately believe the reason they were not given a job is because of their race and the "whiteness" of the would-be employer, even if that employer is not white.
To the point that they legitimately believe any minority that agrees with Trump is a sellout of their race and a white supremacist.
That's how ridiculous and flat out moronic things have gotten in large part due to the way the media shapes their narratives.
Trump may be divisive of his own right (as President, that tends to cause some level of division naturally), but he's nowhere near as divisive as people say he is and nowhere near as divisive as the media is.
Now if only we could translate the results of these polls into actual Democrat defeats in elections, that would be great.
Ephesians 5:11
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week's articles delivered right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
That is an incredibly obvious title and an undeniable fact of politics. The Left only tolerates you when you happen to agree with them, but the minute you dare think for yourself, you become the embodiment of Hitler. That is what Trump has had to deal with for 2 years now and what he will likely have to deal with for the rest of his life. And that extends to the rest of his family, too.
But why am I talking about this? Well, recently, pothead rapper Snoop Dogg (real name Calvin Broadus Jr.) released a video of himself outside the White House saying things like "F*** the President".
This isn't the first time the rapper who has more letters in his name than IQ points left has come out publicly against the President, with him releasing a new album called "Make America Crip Again" which featured a dead body covered by a flag with a toe tag that read "TRUMP", and back in March of 2017, he released a music video that shows him shooting a fake gun at a clown-like Trump character with exaggerated orange paint on his face.
Not to mention that he's not the only celebrity that has publicly come out against Trump, with the likes of Robert DeNiro, Merryl Streep, Samuel L. Jackson and just about anyone who has a big voice in Hollywood attacking the President.
While I don't know if each of them personally knew Trump and liked him in the past, I imagine they at least tolerated him.
In the past, Trump used to be a bit more like a Democrat. That makes sense, since he sought to build buildings in New York City and you kind of have to be pretty friendly with those in the government to get things done quickly and efficiently, and Democrats have had control of NYC for a long time now.
Because he used to be more friendly towards Democrats, those who would vote for Democrats loved him.
Recently, I have been watching The Apprentice. As you may know, the show used to air on NBC. It was wildly popular and a lot of organizations, companies and people wanted to be a part of it.
Having watched an entire season of the show (Season 6, to be precise), I noticed some people in it who now say the sort of things Snoop Dogg recently said. Among which was Snoop Dogg.
Allow me to explain some things, in case you are unfamiliar with how the show runs. Trump selects a large number of people (usually 18 candidates) to participate in the show to be his next Apprentice, someone who will join Trump on a project he wants the Apprentice to lead. He divides the candidates into two teams who are given a project. Whatever team does better in that project wins and receives some form of reward for their good work.
In the season I watched, one of the rewards that were given to the winner of each particular project was visiting the Los Angeles Lakers' practice facility (this season was shot in L.A. instead of the usual NYC) to play a pickup game of basketball and meet legends Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and then-Lakers coach Phil Jackson.
Another reward was visiting Snoop Dogg's recording studio, getting to meet him, and just hang around (though not smoking pot).
So it was pretty clear that Snoop Dogg and the Los Angeles Lakers (who are not necessarily openly against Trump, but Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has been vocal) used to at least be fairly chummy with Trump if they were on his show.
Donald Trump, before running, used to be admired by both the Left and the Right. He was (is) the embodiment of the fullest potential of the American Dream. Not everyone will achieve it, but with time, hard work, dedication, passion and intelligence, it can definitely be achieved.
The Right loved him because he embodied the American Dream. The Left loved him because he was friendly towards them and he helped them out with financial contributions to their campaigns.
According to an article on US News dating back to January of 2016, before Trump was even the GOP nominee, "his political contributions over the last two and a half decades show that prior to the 2008 election cycle, Trump favored Democrats. He donated more than $10,000 to Hillary Clinton between 2002 and 2007, and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is his top beneficiary, raking in $18,350 over the years."
So he donated a good amount of money to Democrats over the years, among whom was his bitter rival Hillary Clinton. Of course, he also donated to Republicans, too. According to that same article, "On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Rep. Mark Foley and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Spector also benefited from Trump's generosity."
So he donated money to yet another person in politics, though supposedly on the Right, who hated him upon his decision to run for POTUS in John McCain.
Trump also donated money, according to US News, to Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell (who is apparently cool with Trump now) and, perhaps most laughably of all, Kirsten Gillibrand. Although, I suppose that last one makes sense, since she has been a New York Senator since 2009.
So he used to be friendly with a lot of people in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Now, the article did mention that he donated more frequently to Democrats until 2008. Afterwards, he began donating more and more to Republicans. And who can blame him when the leader of the Democrat Party was the communist called Barack Hussein Obama?
But even still, I don't quite remember the Left flat out hating Trump like they do now when he started donating more to Republicans. I suppose part of it was that he was still donating to Democrats (again, Gillibrand has been a senator since 2009), so things were kind of okay between them, but still. They only started to really hate him when he decided to run for office as a Republican.
Well, actually, that may not be entirely accurate. If you remember, the media used to mock him and thought he was a joke of a candidate who wouldn't get far, but was good for ratings. So maybe they didn't quite hate him at that point, but the fact that he decided to run as a Republican probably meant severing ties with Democrats from that point on, even if he had lost.
Once Trump became a serious threat to Hillary and the Democrat Party, not to mention his agenda was one that was 180 degrees backwards from the Left's, meant that they harbored a deep-rooted hatred for him.
Now, I'm not saying they're not allowed to not like someone who is now on the other side of their political ideologies. There are a lot of Never Trump conservatives whom I used to like but no longer do, namely people like Glenn Beck and Shepherd Smith among others. And if there is someone who used to be a conservative but now is a liberal, I'm not gonna like that person and think they are either idiotic or giving up to the pressure from the Left.
But I could not say I hate any one of them. The difference between someone who abandons the Left for the Right and someone who abandons the Right for the Left is that the Right won't go bananas over someone leaving them to the point where they give speeches saying they "f*** person X" or "I want to beat up person X" and going to where they live, saying basically what Snoop Dogg is saying.
The fact that Leftists are the ones who do this means their hatred is at their core, to the point they go out of their own way to hurl insults. No right-winger will go out of their own way to insult someone on the Left.
Remember when Kanye West shared a picture of himself wearing a MAGA hat? Remember the slew of people hating on him for it? The people mocking him? This is what happens when you leave the Democrat slave plantation of thought. You get hunted down, attacked and harassed.
Until he altogether decided to stay away from politics (can't blame him), he was hounded and harassed. Remember when two of Don Lemon's guests made racist remarks towards him, saying that that's what happens when an n-word doesn't read?
They loved him when he said George Bush didn't care about black people and hated him to the core when he showed himself wearing a MAGA hat, which to them, in their ridiculous world of insanity, is basically the equivalent of a swastika.
They "loved" Kanye until they realized he thought for himself. They "loved" Trump until the money stopped pouring in and ran against Hillary. They "love" anyone until that person disagrees with them or stops helping them. And when that person disagrees with them, all hell breaks loose.
NBC used to host The Apprentice. Snoop Dogg, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and likely other celebrities (again, I've only watched season 6) have been on the show as part of the rewards. And let's not forget that NBC used to air CELEBRITY APPRENTICE, where, as the title suggests, a bunch of celebrities try to get hired by Trump as his Apprentice (though Celebrity Apprentice basically replaced The Apprentice).
But once Trump dared to go against the Left, he became enemy number 1. Once anyone dares defy the Left, they become targets of hatred and ire.
One can hardly say the Left loves anyone. They don't. They don't even love themselves, how can they possibly love others? What they do is merely tolerate others as long as they agree with the Leftist agenda. That's not love, and obviously, that's not even tolerance.
Love is supposed to be unconditional. That's not what the Left feels for anyone including themselves. So when someone like Trump comes along and defies them, it's no surprise the kind of toxicity that oozes out of them henceforth.
Their hearts are filled with hatred. They are not tolerant; they are not loving; they are evil, plain and simple.
Matthew 12:35
"The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week's articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to subscribe today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Since the November elections earlier this week resulted in nothing close to a blue wave for Democrats, two stories have since popped up regarding journalists, though with largely varying coverage of them.
First, and the story being covered the most, is Jim Acosta playing the victim after he put his hands on a female White House staffer whose job was to pass the microphone to other members of the White House press corps, but Jim refused to let her take away the mic because he wanted to continue badgering the President.
During the event, which was caught on camera, Jim Acosta was making comments, rather than asking questions, directed towards the President. When Trump wanted the mic to go to someone else, the female staffer had to perform her duties of passing the mic to whomever Trump had chosen to speak. However, Jim refused to hand over the microphone, and when the staffer tried to take it away from him, he put his hands in the crease of her elbow in a defensive manner to keep her from taking away the mic.
Now, I will give Jim the benefit of the doubt and say that he probably didn't mean to do that and only did it in the heat of the moment, out of reaction over someone getting a bit too close to him. However, whatever sympathy I could feel for him goes away when he says he didn't put his hand on her (video evidence proves otherwise) and goes as far as to say, when back on with CNN, that Trump had been targeting the media and he was trying to shut them down in response to Trump revoking his access to the press corps.
That's an actual complaint he had in the aftermath of the incident. He didn't apologize to the female staffer for touching her, even if it had been out of reaction, and even tries to make himself the victim of some injustice.
Due to this incident, the media chooses to side with Acosta and say that the President is attacking the media and trying to shut them down like the "fascist" he is, even though fascists control the media, not fight them (does that ring any bells of previous presidents?).
Now, let's move on to the second story relating to a journalist, but one who actually has received threats: Tucker Carlson's home was nearly broken into by an Antifa mob of about 20 people on Wednesday night.
While Carlson was prepping for his show, he received a text from his wife, who was at home at the time, detailing that she was in the kitchen about to make dinner when she heard loud noises and banging on her door. She didn't know there was a mob outside, thought someone was trying to break in (they likely were), and hid in the pantry.
The reason we know this was an Antifa mob is because the hate group Smash Racism DC posted a video of the mob on Twitter (which has since been deleted by Twitter), which shows chants for Carlson that he was a racist, that he should leave town and were overall making threats towards him (even though he wasn't there at the time). And in the video, a woman can be heard saying she wants to "bring a pipe bomb" to Carlson's home.
Tucker Carlson detailed a bit of the event, saying: "Someone started throwing himself against the front door and actually cracked the front door." Unless that person is a massive moron (they probably are anyway) and was simply expressing his anger by banging himself against the door, I see no reason to believe whoever was doing it was not trying to get inside.
What reason would someone have to throw themselves against someone's front door, eventually cracking it? Either that person was trying to get inside in a really stupid way, or was simply incredibly moronic, hurting himself while expressing his anger (I'm assuming it was a man, but it could've been a woman).
Carlson has, as mentioned, a wife and four young children. Thankfully, he and his children were not inside at this time, but his wife was and she was terrified.
But is the media going to be talking about this, at least to the same extent that they are talking about Acosta? Are they going to say Carlson is the victim of threats like Acosta is? Of course not.
If they do talk about it, it will either be slightly mentioned and then be ignored, or the media will somehow try to justify the actions of the mob. People on Twitter certainly are trying to justify it.
But both of these situations highlight the incessant hypocrisy of the Left and the media. When Jim Acosta puts his hands on a female staffer to keep her from taking away a mic that doesn't belong to him, and he's temporarily banned from the White House as a result, the media rushes in to defend him and his actions, denying what he did and trying to characterize Trump as a fascist who is trying to shut down the media.
When Tucker Carlson is actually threatened by a hateful group of people surrounding his house, one of whom stated she wanted to bring a pipe bomb to the home of someone who has a wife and FOUR YOUNG CHILDREN, and with one of them likely trying to break in, all you'll get is crickets at best and flat out sociopaths who couldn't give a damn about the family that was just threatened due to Carlson's beliefs.
And by the way, it's not like this was a crowd protesting something Carlson said that maybe he shouldn't have. It was a crowd protesting and threatening someone for holding a different view. It was a crowd that thoroughly believes Carlson is hurting people by exposing the truth about Antifa, the media and the Left in general. It was a crowd that, because they think Carlson is hurting people with words, wanted to hurt him physically and possibly even kill him and his family if that woman on the video was serious about a pipe bomb.
And it's not like a pipe bomb is hard to make. It's considered an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) precisely because it's not hard to make. One of them could have actually made one, lit it, and thrown it inside Carlson's home. A Molotov cocktail is also not hard to make, and could potentially do quite some damage as well.
So what you have in one corner is a fake news propagandist who calls himself a journalist complaining and crying over the fact that his inexcusable actions were punished (like a child throwing a tantrum), claiming Trump is out to get him and the media. In the other corner, you have a conservative journalist who was threatened at his own home (though he wasn't there) by a deranged mob of Leftist lunatics who legitimately wish to cause him physical harm that could go as far as to kill him and his family.
Which one of the two will get more coverage? A snowflake "journalist" complaining that daddy took away his toy because he was being bad or a right-winger journalist having a mob of psychopaths at his literal doorstep threatening him and calling for him to leave the very town he grew up in just because he has different views from them?
And let's not ignore the fact that these deranged lunatics believe the things they believe because they buy into the media narrative that Republicans and conservatives are racists, bigot, homophobes who want to harm people and even kill them by taking away their healthcare, which is up there in terms of massive lies in the history of the world, alongside "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", "if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor" and "Nazis were not socialists".
I know that it might be taboo to try to say that it's because of the media that these people do what they do, but let me ask you this: if the media were covering Trump, and by extension Republicans, fairly and not saying they are racists and fascists, would such mobs show up, particularly as often as they do?
If the media were honest, would Antifa be around, or at least have as many people in their ranks as they do?
You might not want to believe that the media has much or anything to do with the actions of these deranged psychopaths, but their constant attacks on Trump and conservatives creates within their base at least a good number of people who thoroughly believe that crap and will want to take serious action apart from voting against them.
If the words and actions of the media lead others to justify acts of violence and/or harassment, then the media truly is the enemy of the people.
Proverbs 12:22
"Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week's articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
I hardly need a poll to tell me what I know to be true: the fake news media is far more divisive than Trump ever could be. However, that does not mean I do not smile at seeing many people agreeing with me on this issue.
Recently, a Morning Consult poll was released, asking 2,435 voters (so a large sample size) if Trump and the media have done more to divide the country than unite it. According to the poll, an overwhelming 64% of registered voters "said the press has done more to divide the country than unite it since Trump took office…"
56% said the same about Trump, but we'll get to that momentarily.
The poll also shows percentages according to political party affiliation. According to the poll, 88% of Democrats said Trump was divisive, but a surprising 46% said the press was divisive.
With Independents, 67% said the media was divisive, compared to 54% who said that of Trump.
With Republicans, 80% said the press was divisive and 25% said Trump was.
Many of these numbers are pretty fascinating and good, in my opinion.
That 88% of Dems saying Trump is divisive does not surprise me. Frankly, what surprises me is that it's not in the 90 percentile. However, that 46% of Dems saying the press was divisive is quite incredible and says an awful lot about the lack of credibility the fake news media has with their own target demographic, who should theoretically always support them.
It's not exactly a majority, being less than 50%, but it's incredibly close. As for Independents, who tend to go one way or the other, depending on the person (Sanders is technically an Independent, though he's a far-Left Independent), they tend to be people who are dissatisfied with both parties, and given the Left's recent behavior, I suspect there are more Independents today than even a few years ago, given the recent Walk Away movement.
67% of Independents saying the media is divisive is not a good thing for Democrats. And while 54% also say Trump is divisive, that's still far less than those who point towards the media's divisiveness.
As far as Republicans go, neither number really surprises me too much. I would think more than just 80% of Republicans would say the media is divisive, and I know very well that there are NeverTrump Republicans out there, so that 25% is actually fairly low and also a good sign for Trump.
Another Morning Consult/Politico poll back in July found that "28 percent of voters said they had 'a lot' of confidence in the presidency – more than twice the 13 percent who said the same of television news and double the 14 percent who said the same of newspapers."
But these numbers generally point out what should really be crystal clear to anyone paying attention: the media is largely responsible for the divisiveness in our country.
Now, Trump being President, and being one who pushes back against the Left, naturally will also cause some divisiveness. The only reason Democrats and the media could say today that Bush was less divisive is because he was nowhere near as much of a fighter against the Left as Trump is. Let's not forget that much of Bush's early presidency was marred with Democrats being bitter about the Supreme Court deciding the election, thinking it was stolen from them. (ring any bells?)
The biggest reason Trump is characterized as divisive is because he actually fights back against the Democrats and the media, who have gotten used to Republicans quaking in their boots and apologizing for breathing.
But in this rhetoric of Trump's divisiveness, and with pretty much every other rhetoric the media throws out there, it is the media that is largely to blame for the division in our country.
Who can blame people for thinking this way, when you have Don Lemon calling for people (aka Trump and Republicans) to stop demonizing people and in the same breath he demonizes white people and Republicans? When you have Julia Ioffe saying Trump has radicalized more people than ISIS has? When you have people calling Trump "Hitler" and Trump's supporters "Nazis"? When you have people defending the vandalism and destruction that Antifa causes, calling them "angels"? When you have people defending acts of violence and/or harassment of Republican members of Congress or Trump's staff?
Who can blame people for believing the media divides people when the media fought tooth and nail to spread lies and slander about a Supreme Court nominee with zero evidence? When the media pins the blame of any shooting anywhere on Trump and Republicans? When the media supports the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia, despite zero evidence ever having turned up? When the media defends one of the most crooked Presidents and presidential nominees we have ever seen in Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respectively?
Who can blame people for believing this way when the media calls for others to tone down on the rhetoric, and in the same breath will tone up their OWN rhetoric? When over 90% of the coverage of Trump is negative?
And these are all just examples that come to immediate mind. I'm sure there are countless other examples of the media being divisive that I am forgetting. But it's because of all of these examples, both the ones I listed and the ones I am certainly forgetting, that the people cannot come to trust what the media tells them.
Now, earlier, I mentioned that I would get to the 56% of people who said Trump was divisive. Again, he's the President. The position tends to naturally divide people, at least to some extent. But the arguments made against him that he's divisive ultimately come down to "he's not apologizing like every other Republican ever". Sure, that is never said outright, but that is ultimately the Left's complaint with Trump. He doesn't apologize for being who he is, for saying what he says and for doing what he's doing. And it's part of this defiance of the status quo of Republicans apologizing for daring to take a breath of air that makes Trump as successful and popular as he is.
Of course, that is only part of it, but it is a substantial part. And it's this success that comes with his attitude that further drives the Left to insanity. Nothing they have tried has worked. No narrative, no rhetoric; no tried and true method of destroying Republicans has even made a dent. If anything, these attacks have had the opposite effect. The attacks were supposed to tear his approval numbers to shreds. He sits at the mid to high-40s, with some having him at 50% approval, which has him higher than Obama was at this point in his own presidency.
Granted, much of that is due to the fact that Trump is actually Making America Great Again, but the constant attacks against Trump are what drive his supporters closer to him.
I have often said that Trump's election victory, and his subsequent success post-election, have driven the Left to near insanity, if they aren't already there. They had a thermonuclear reaction to Trump's victory, the effects of which we are still seeing and will continue to see for a very long time, most likely. This being the case, who can blame people for trying to distance themselves from what is highly radioactive and toxic?
64% of voters said the media is dividing the country. In all honesty, that number should be at 100% or somewhere close to that. Of course, that would be living in a perfect world where people don't buy into the crap the Left sells and we do not live in such a world. But for this being an imperfect world, I will gladly take 64% of people believing and KNOWING the media is dividing the country.
I just hope that one day, that number will be very, very low, and we can have a news-media world that reports the truth rather than distorts it – that reflects narratives and beliefs, not create them.
Colossians 2:8
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. Unlike the fake news media that will lie to you about pretty much everything, you can rest assured that it is not a lie when I tell you that this is completely free. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
If you know me, you know I do not tend to insult people. I always argue Leftists' dumb arguments but never really call those people dumb. I call them out for what they are, but typically without insulting them. And if I insult them, it's typically a part of a joke, to some extent.
As for Don Lemon, I will not insult him, since that's beneath me. However, this needs to be made completely clear: he is, without a shadow of a doubt, a disgustingly hypocritical slimeball.
Recently, Don Lemon said some things that will leave anyone to cringe in utter disgust with the man.
First, on a CNN panel on Monday, he argued that he doesn't see Democrats killing people because of political motivations. That the mail-bomber and the Tree of Life shooter were both right-wingers and that that is to blame for the violence.
When the issue of the shooter who tried to kill Republicans came up, he argued that there is no equivalency there. No comparison. Of course, that being bullcrap, Lemon does not explain why it's different.
Second, talking with Chris Cuomo, Lemon said "we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right. And we have to start doing something about them… There is no white guy ban."
In the same sentence, in the same breath, Lemon urges people not to demonize others, all-the-while demonizing white people and Republicans. It's truly sickening what goes on in this guy's mind and what comes out of his mouth. So allow me to slowly, but surely dismantle this guy's arguments and properly call him out for exactly what he is.
Let's begin with the argument that he doesn't see Democrats killing people and that the socialist shooter is different from the synagogue shooter and mail-bomber.
First of all, even this hypocrite can't tell me the socialist shooter wasn't trying to kill people. The socialist shooter didn't bring his AR-15 to the baseball field and start shooting Republicans because he wanted to have a civil conversation about healthcare. He went there because Bernie Sanders said prior to the shooting that Republicans were going to kill millions of people by getting rid of healthcare or changing it in the least.
The socialist shooter was reportedly shouting "this is for healthcare!" while he was shooting. Miraculously, that nut-job didn't kill anyone. But he definitely tried to, given he was FIRING AT OTHER PEOPLE!
Second of all, the mail-bomber already had a history of violence, and even sending bombs in the mail in the past. Not to mention that the bombs were inoperable. They didn't blow up and were not designed to. If Lemon can't see Democrats killing people because the socialist shooter didn't actually kill anyone, then by that logic, we can't see the mail bomber killing anyone because he didn't. Lemon's argument here is largely based on the fortunate technicality that the socialist shooter didn't manage to kill anyone. But let's not forget that he was definitely trying to and sent Rep. Steve Scalise to the hospital.
Third of all, the Tree of Life shooter was not a right-winger. He was an ardent anti-Trumper who hated the fact that Trump was so pro-Jew and pro-Israel. That line of thinking falls more in line with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Al Sharpton, etc., who are all Leftists.
Beyond the socialist shooter, there are countless other stories of Leftists threatening the lives of anyone they disagree with and committing acts of violence. I've already written about that sort of thing TWICE, listing the rap sheet from Breitbart about the number of Leftist and media-incited/ignored/acceptable acts of violence against the Right.
I don' trust that any of them wouldn't go as far as to kill someone they disagree with should they have the chance to. That's one of the reasons we have the second amendment and why we carry guns, just in case someone threatens and fully intends to take our lives.
If they are willing to actually terrorize people they disagree with, the next step is to actually kill them. The only political groups that have shown this tendency and attitude are Leftist political groups like Black Lives Matter, some of whom HAVE gone as far as to kill cops, and Antifa, who are one successful killing away from being labeled a terrorist organization the likes of ISIS, Hamas, etc.
Finally, let's not forget that a Democrat HAS ACTUALLY KILLED a Republican in the past. Need I remind you that John Wilkes Booth successfully assassinated Republican President Abraham Lincoln? Booth was from the Democrat South, which hated that Lincoln was fighting them over their supposed "right" to own a human being.
So if Lemon can't see a Democrat killing anyone for political reasons, he is completely ignorant of history. Not something that surprises me, but something that must be pointed out here.
Now, let's move on to the racially-charged comment that honestly makes me, a Latino man, sick to my stomach.
The hypocrisy of that comment leaves me in utter shock. Not because I didn't expect it – I certainly did - but because within the same breath, he calls on people to stop demonizing others and proceeds to demonize others.
What he means by that statement is that Trump and Republicans need to stop demonizing the media and the Left and just take that same demonization themselves. The media definitely doesn't need to stop demonizing Republicans. Democrats definitely don't need to stop demonizing Republicans. The Left doesn't need to tone down on the inflammatory rhetoric, but Trump and Republicans do. Matter of fact, slimeballs like Lemon will flat out deny that their rhetoric is in any way inflammatory.
I don't really know what else to say. Lemon's comment speaks for itself. Aside from being hugely hypocritical, it is disgustingly racist. Saying that white people are a terror threat? How is this guy allowed on television? Trying to bring up the supposed "Muslim" ban (which doesn't ban Muslims, just people from a list of Islamic-terror-related countries, and they know that, but they don't care) and suggesting that maybe there should be a "white guy" ban?
Do you see now why I call him a hypocritical slimeball? His rhetoric is more inflammatory than he could claim Trump's is, his arguments are illogical and flat out racist, and he, as well as the entirety of CNN, all believe what he is saying is acceptable and even right and correct.
And this comes in the same week that Far-Left writer Julia Ioffe said, on CNN, that Trump has "radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did."
She later "apologized" by saying she was "exaggerating". But that, of course, leads us to believe she fully believes Trump has and is radicalizing people much in the same way ISIS does.
These two are not the only ones at CNN (or the broader Fake News media, for that matter) who have claimed Trump is to blame for the actions of the mail-bomber and synagogue shooter and is to blame for the current political climate.
But in doing all of this, apart from dodging the truth about those two nut-jobs (mail-bomber having a criminal history and the shooter being anti-Trump), they use the same inflammatory rhetoric they claim Trump is using, but even more so.
These people are unapologetic about their rhetoric. If they were, they wouldn't be using it. For all their claims that Trump is dividing the nation, in reality, it is them who are doing that.
Trump, after the Tree of Life shooting, decided to go to Pittsburgh. The Left's response? Attacking him, saying he shouldn't be there. Trump, after the mail-bombing suspect was caught, gave a strong speech condemning his actions. The Left's response? Trump is not being sincere.
While Trump's use of "enemy of the people" to describe the FAKE news media (I capitalize the word fake because people tend to omit that part) might be inflammatory, it is nonetheless true. The fake news media constantly lies about everything, but that is the least of their sins that label them as the "enemy of the people". Apart from straight up lying to people, they constantly label those they disagree with as racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. They label others as Nazis and fascists. They call Trump Hitler and a WaPo article even said he's worse than Hitler.
In this labeling, they label everyone who supports Trump as a Nazi. Everyone who even slightly disagrees with them on anything as a Nazi. And Lemon, right here, is labeling those he disagrees with (and white people in general) as terror threats.
These people are filled to the brim with hatred. They hate Trump for everything he does and manages to do. They hate us for having ever defied their narcissistic behinds and choosing to support him. And in this hatred, they excuse actual threats and acts of violence against conservatives and right-wingers, all-the-while insisting it is us who are the real threat to democracy, to America, to people.
As human beings, I don't consider the fake news media to be my enemy. As a Christian, I don't do that. But as a political commentator, someone who wants what is best for the country, I consider them the enemy of the state.
Everything they want works towards the systemic dismantling of America as founded. That's what the 8 years of Obama were all about. That's what Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and every other Democrat is about. The fundamental destruction of the United States and the fundamental change towards a socialist nation in the likes of China, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, etc.
What they want is dangerous, and what they spew is dangerous. No, I would never harm any of them and anyone who wishes harm upon them, I disavow and no longer consider them conservatives because a true conservative would never want or do that.
But it truly must be understood that these people don't care for America. THAT is what makes them the enemy of the people.
As for Lemon himself, I have nothing else to say. He's a disgusting, hypocritical slimeball. I only have respect for him in that I respect his life and his right to his own opinion. Apart from that, he does not get nor deserve any sort of respect from anyone, let alone me.
I think he is someone in dire need of Christ. Looking into his eyes, I see someone who is dead inside. A typical trait for those who do not have faith in the Lord, and particularly for those on the Left. I sincerely hope he finds Christ. That is the best I can wish for him.
Ephesians 2:8
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. Unlike the fake news media, I won't lie to you about something being free. When I say this newsletter is free, that is the truth. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
At first glance, that seems like a very obvious statement to make. Of course the Left doesn't like it when you call them out. I don't think there are many people who like it when they are called out on something, be it hypocrisy, idiocy, etc. But why am I particularly talking about this now? Because of a relatively new internet meme (picture above) that has ticked off the Left so much that you can't even share it on Twitter, lest you get banned for doing it.
What is this meme? It's called the "NPC" meme. In the video game world, an NPC is Artificial Intelligence. It's the non-playable characters that you see around you, whether they give you missions, join you in them, or serve to keep you from achieving your goal.
An NPC is programmed by a game's developer to act in particular ways and to react in particular ways to actions perpetrated either by other NPCs or, usually, by the player.
Given this explanation as to what an NPC is and does, I think we can all make the connection to the Left.
Leftists, particularly on social media, act like NPCs. They utter lines of dialogue that have been implanted there by the media, or academia, or Democrats, etc. When Elizabeth Warren says she's Native American, these NPCs automatically believe her. When Dr. Ford said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, the NPCs automatically believe her because they are programmed to believe the Leftist over the right-winger. Despite any evidence, and sometimes despite evidence to the contrary, NPCs will continue to believe whatever the Left wants them to believe.
No evidence Trump colluded with Russia? Trump colluded anyway. No evidence Kavanaugh did anything remotely to what the accusers (who have now basically fallen out of the daily news-cycle) are claiming? Kavanaugh is a serial rapist anyway. There is no actual evidence to suggest there is climate change, or at least man-made climate change? We are all gonna fry like eggs.
Beyond absorbing whatever they can get from the Mainstream Media and other Leftist sources, they try to also dish it back out to people, repeating Marxist lines of dialogue such as "capitalism kills people" and "socialism has been proven to work" when there is a myriad of evidence to suggest the exact opposite.
So because this meme so accurately portrays these Leftists, they act in a very NPC way and try to push back against it. Particularly, a Left-wing gaming blog called "Kotaku" published an article titled: "How The 'NPC' Meme Tries To Dehumanize 'SJWs'".
If there ever was a more NPC title to push back against the meme, I don't know it. They describe the meme as "anti-progressive" and "dehumanizing" to Leftists, saying that "NPCs have no agency; NPCs don't think for themselves; NPCs don't perceive, process, or understand; NPCs arrive at the same worldview not because it's authentic to their experiences, but automatically. As a descriptor, it suggests that those whom it applies aren't even human, but are rather, functionally, robots, or clusters of computer code…"
Funny, I don't remember anyone on the Left saying that it's dehumanizing to call conservatives on Twitter "Russian bots".
They can call us "Russian bots" all they want, but that's completely fine, isn't it? If it's dehumanizing to call Leftists "NPCs", then it's dehumanizing to call conservatives "Russian bots".
The difference here is that we (kind of) are joking when we call Leftists "NPCs". We make fun of their AI-like behavior in relying squarely on information from untrustworthy sources. But whenever they call us "Russian bots", they (for the most part, at least) don't appear to be joking. It's an actual excuse the Left uses to explain the popularity of Trump and/or other conservatives.
I won't go as far as to say that it's dehumanizing conservatives (though an argument can be made to suggest it, particularly with the Left's mob rule as of late. And that's not to say that the Left doesn't dehumanize conservatives at all), but it is highly hypocritical for Leftist to whine about this meme, which is intended as a joke by definition, all-the-while chucking up Trump's popularity to supposed Russian bots.
As far as this NPC meme goes, it's mostly about being funny while exposing a bit of an unquestionable truth. People on the Left, particularly those who most openly spew communist propaganda nonsense, act very much like this meme depicts them.
They are programmed to act in a certain way and to respond to others in a certain way. Every lie they spew such as "Jesus was a socialist", "there was a switch at some point that made Republicans racist and Democrats not racist" (which is honestly the most laughable lie of all), and "Trump hates immigrants" is part and parcel of their core programming. They don't have to present evidence of it. They just have to, at most, point to an MSM source, or a Leftist source altogether to "prove" them right.
And the funny thing is that some top Democrats can be considered NPCs too. After the Parkland shooting back in February of 2018, Bernie Sanders shared data from a Leftist source that said there had been 18 school shootings including Parkland. The data included simple firing of weapons within what can be considered school grounds, even if the shooting didn't harm or kill anyone.
And because Bernie Sanders is such a popular figure in the Left, other people started to propagate that same lie, not bothering to check the facts that even the Leftist source shares.
Overall, I just find it funny, though not surprising, that Leftists are getting so triggered by this meme that the overlords at Twitter have decided to ban the meme altogether. The meme pretty accurately describes what a Leftist today is: someone who is programmed to act in a certain way and offer certain responses.
Granted, that's been the behavior of the Left for a while now, but the fact that an internet meme so perfectly describes them in this way is incredibly funny to me both in what the meme itself does and what the Left's response to the meme has been. As it turns out, NPCs don't like it when you call them "NPCs".
I'll probably be adding "NPC" to my daily vernacular from now on. It's always good to have more ammo.
Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes entirely free of charge. With it, you receive a compilation of the week's articles sent right into your inbox for easy viewing. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One of the biggest stories post-confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh has been a short portion of a segment on Don Lemon's show on CNN. And this segment showcases the kind of ignorant and blatant racism that exists on the Left in more than one way.
Talking about Kanye West and his support for President Donald Trump, Don Lemon had three different guests on. Two of them were black (former Congressman Bakari Sellers and CNN contributor Tara Setmeyer) and another person, a white guy. But the bigger things to focus on are what the two black guests said on the show.
The Bakari Sellers started by saying: "Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read. And we have this now, and Donald Trump is going to use this and pervert it, and he's gonna have somebody who can stand with him and take pictures."
At this, Don Lemon was not shocked by his words. Matter of fact, he laughed when he saw the white guy's face reacting to Bakari's use of the n-word and his overall offensive statement which I will get to momentarily.
Then, Tara chimed in on the racism: "Listen, black folks are about to trade Kanye West in the racial draft, okay? They've had it with him. And he's an attention whore like the President. He's all of a sudden now the model spokesperson; he's the token Negro of the Trump Administration? This is ridiculous. And no one should be taking Kanye West seriously; he clearly has issues; he's already been hospitalized…"
There are a lot of different things I could say here that would ultimately make this article too long. So, I will try my best at summarizing.
Primarily, it should come as no surprise that this is insanely offensive to black people. These two ignoramuses call Kanye West, a Trump supporter, things like an attention whore, a token Negro, and insult his intelligence, saying that this is what happens when black folks don't read. To me, that sounds exactly like something a Grand Wizard in the KKK would say. West's support for Trump characterizes him as an ignorant black man who doesn't read and has mental issues.
This is adamantly disgusting by CNN and not a single person on the Left gives a damn. Why? Because it's black people calling West a token Negro and other things.
Which brings us to the other racist part of CNN. They knew damn well that if they had white people calling him a Negro, that would be considered racist. So they had other black people to do their bidding (kinda like slavery?) and call him these horrible, racist things. To the Left, a black person is not considered racist if they do or say something adamantly racist against someone else.
Particularly so if the person they target disagrees with the Left. I was going to say "particularly if the person they target is a conservative" but I would be hard-pressed to call West a conservative, at least for now. It's gone past the point of political labels. Anyone that even remotely disagrees with the Left is prey to be slaughtered. Someone who must be totally destroyed.
And since West is a black Trump supporter, the Left feels comfortable having black people attack him using race.
Now, as I promised, I will now analyze what these disgusting people actually said.
"Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don't read…" Let's be honest, there is nothing but racism and condescension here. To think this man was ever in Congress would shock me if I were not already aware of the Left's hideous nature. And this sentence alone exposes how bigoted they are. Not only that, the fact that CNN had a black guy say this shows that not only are they bigoted, but cowards as well, hiding behind Bakari's skin color.
Not only was that insanely offensive, it is also flat-out incorrect. Kanye West escaped the Left's slave plantation, which is more than I can say for Lemon, Bakari and Tara. They call him uneducated and ignorant when they themselves are uneducated and ignorant. That's not to say they did not go to college or public school. That is to say, however, that they were not educated. Rather, they were indoctrinated in the poisons of the Left.
For anyone to abandon the Democrat Party, they are abandoning the party of segregation during the Civil War. The party of racism that fought to keep slaves. The party of racism that was largely split in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would make a "pot calling the kettle black" joke about these disgusting people, but that might be misconstrued as racist just because the word "black" is included, so I will hold my tongue there.
Moving on to what Tara said, that was both offensive to black people AND to people who struggle with mental health. So that's a double-whammy of a horrible statement made by a horrible person.
But perhaps the most horrendously ironic part comes outside of this particular segment. The same people that are calling Kanye West a token Negro are the same people who call Taylor Swift "brave" for supporting the Democrat candidate in her state of Tennessee.
This is the double-standard set forth by the Left. Any black person that supports Trump and/or is conservative is a token Negro. Any woman that is conservative is a traitor to her gender, as though that's a line people should not cross. Any Hispanic that is conservative is a traitor to other Hispanics. Ditto for gay people who are conservative.
Anyone who is a conservative and is a minority is a traitor to their minority in the Left's eyes. So allow me to retort in a few ways:
First, that's dumb.
Second, that's racist. My race does not defy who I am. While I am Hispanic, that does not mean being a Leftist. Far from it, considering most Hispanics tend to be Christian.
Third, if being Hispanic means I have to be a Democrat, then I sexually identify as a white man. That does not even make any sense, but that's no longer a requirement in the Left's world.
But this all speaks to the Left's sense of entitlement. They feel as though they OWN minorities. That is why they say that conservative minorities are traitors to their race, gender, etc. By saying that, they expose the fact that they fundamentally believe they own minorities.
They believe they own women all-the-while claiming they fight for their liberation. They believe they own black people all-the-while calling for supposed racial equality. They believe they own minorities. This has been a staple of their political leanings since even before the Democrat Party was founded.
Even the 13th Amendment, which prohibits people from owning another person, can't keep these new-age KKKers from believing they own people.
Perhaps it is for this reason that I should not be so surprised that CNN would have some black people attack Kanye West based solely on his race. However, that does not make it any less disgusting to witness.
CNN should be ashamed, but they clearly aren't.
Proverbs 6:12-15
"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."
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is 100% free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week's articles sent straight into your inbox. And it's easy too! All you have to do is click on the box on the right, input your email address and click "subscribe". That's it! So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As It Turns Out, Millennials Are Not All That Interested In Voting… Even For Democrats
There are multiple polls out there that try to signify one thing or another. Polls that signify utter defeat for Republicans, not such big defeats for Republicans, and perhaps considerable gains for Republicans. Polls that show extreme levels of enthusiasm never before seen in American politics. And as is always the case, both parties wish to gain the young people's vote. However, one reporter from NBC News discovered something that perhaps should not come as so much of a surprise: Millennials are not all that interested in voting.
Recently, an NBC News correspondent went to the University of California-Irvine campus in Orange County, an area known for being rather conservative, and asked some students there if they were going to vote this November. Of the roughly 20 students that were gathered by a bus stop, only one of them told the MSM correspondent that they would vote. The rest either did not suggest they would vote or flat out ignored the guy. He actually had to ask the question three times before one of the students said they would vote, so that tells you the level of enthusiasm in these kids.
After that rather embarrassing spectacle, the correspondent asked a couple of students what they cared about. Their answer should really not come as a surprise to anyone: "school."
Who knew college students cared mostly about school?
Getting back on track, the correspondent asked the same kids what would be the topic that would ultimately garner their vote. Their answer was not very different. Their biggest concern was how much school cost, which is a problem we can all understand.
Might I offer a suggestion for lowering school tuition? How about colleges stop paying exorbitant amounts of money to people pretending to be a different race in order to meet a racial diversity quota only to have those people teach a class every once in a blue moon? *ahem* Elizabeth Warren *ahem*. Or how about no longer paying crazy people to stand on a stage and yell at white people for the suffering of minorities (that Democrats cause) and that there are as many genders as there are flavors of ice cream?
Either way, let's get back to the surprised NBC News correspondent.
He mentioned to the two students who said their biggest concern was school that they had not mentioned the biggest issues that "people talk about on the news all the time – the Russia investigation, the Supreme Court."
The students answered that they simply did not watch the news, which is why they do not concern themselves with that sort of stuff.
The correspondent moved on to two more students. He told them that it could fall to them whether or not Congress was in the hands of Republicans or Democrats and asked them if they were currently thinking about that. Their answer, at this point, should not come as a surprise. They are not very enthusiastic or concerned about voting or even who Congress goes to. The student who answered also mentioned that he assumes that "the people voting have probably some idea of who they are voting for."
The correspondent then turned to the other student, a girl, and asked her if she was going to vote. She says: "I should," and mentions that "we are the most unreliable people [for] Democrats…"
The correspondent finally conceded that they might not vote and asked them, in a disappointed tone, that the Democrats "can't count on you guys necessarily." The students answered with a relatively uncaring "no".
Of course, this all comes as relative good news and bad news. The good news is that these kids aren't being poisoned by what the media says. The bad news is that they are also not getting themselves informed of how diabolical the Democrat Party is and the horrendous behavior they have shown throughout the Kavanaugh confirmation process and even before that.
They actually kind of remind me of the Chinese millennials who were not interested in communism, in a way.
And all things considered, I am not so surprised that these kids are not all that interested in voting. Most people, believe it or not, are not all that political. This includes even millennials. But I will admit that I, myself, was about as surprised as the NBC News correspondent. Knowing what's been going on in this country, the fact that millennials (at least these ones in the video) are not all that interested in voting is actually pretty surprising.
Of course, you also have to take into consideration that these are college kids who have other things in mind. Things like midterms (exams, that is), projects, part-time jobs, events, clubs, friends, relationships, etc., so it is understandable that maybe who wins the 2018 midterm elections might not be at the forefront of their minds.
Generally speaking, midterm elections are not as popular or considered to be as important as presidential elections. And even though both Republicans and Democrats make it a case to point out how important this next election is (for different reasons, obviously), there are still people who will not really care all that much and stay at home on November 6th.
Even I make the point that this midterm election is a lot more important than the ones in the past. In my honest opinion, the 2018 midterms are just as important as the 2016 presidential election. I consider this next election a turning point. Either we fall back to the socialism that ravaged the country during the Obama years, but on steroids, or we push back against the destructive Left and possibly send them over the edge of complete and total insanity.
Insanity that could lead to even more violence that makes the kind of violence we are witnessing now look like a tea party by comparison.
But I digress. From what I can gather with this funny NBC video, I take it that people are not quite as fired up to kick Trump out of office as the Left thought they were. With how they've been portraying Trump, they believe the vast majority of the country agrees with them. That Trump's supporters regretted voting for him the minute he won and are ready to toss him on his behind. That all of America hates that Trump cheated to win and wants to rectify that.
That is so far from reality, the Left might as well be 2D cartoons.
That's not to say deranged Leftists aren't fired up to vote down-the-line Democrat this November, but that is to say that there is likely an equal or greater amount of Americans, not just conservatives but Independents and former Democrats too, who are fired up to punish these unruly children calling themselves a political party.
All I know is that this millennial right here is ready to vote down-the-line Republican and keep, if not grow, the GOP majority in Congress. Not necessarily because I believe these Republicans are great and care about what I think or are ready to pass MAGA agenda items, but because I know full-well what the alternative would be.
If I have to choose between a human being with flaws or literally Satan, I would choose the human.
Ephesians 6:16
"In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one;"
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week's articles delivered right into your inbox. And as the name suggests, it's entirely free. Unlike the Left who promise free things but screw you in the end, this subscription has no hidden fees. So make sure to subscribe today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
That title could really be directed towards the entirety of the Left, but I will particularly set my sights on ABC's "The View" hosts for something that at least one of their hosts said that I will promptly share with you.
On Thursday, upon learning that the FBI investigation did not find any sort of sexual misconduct, harassment or even come close to corroborating Dr. Ford's claims of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the hosts of "The View" were, unsurprisingly, furious. Granted, that seems to be their perpetual mood given that they are Leftists and they hate everyone and everything that isn't like them, but still.
NewsBusters covered this story, and in their article, they give the following context: "Referencing Don Jr.'s comments that men could be falsely accused, Whoopi lectured that men needed to trust in the system and should want thorough FBI investigations. Host Sunny Hostin added that women had to 'teach their sons to respect women' and 'teach their sons about consent,' before going on a tirade about how women's 'truth' should be believed."
This is what Hostin is quoted as having said: "I also think like you do, Whoopi, that women should be believed! Our daughters should be believed! Our sisters, our mothers. Since when is someone not saying, 'This is my truth. This is what happened to me' enough? I don't understand that!"
Here's the thing: there is a difference between believing a woman's story and wanting to destroy someone's life based entirely on the woman's story.
Allow me to explain. There is such a thing as due process, despite what the Left wants to do. In due process, a woman's (or anyone's) claim is not enough to destroy someone's life, be it sending them to jail or otherwise punishing the accused.
Hostin is basically asking: "since when is it not enough for a woman to say something happened to her to be believed?" The issue is not whether or not she is believable. The issue is whether or not what she says is the truth and whether or not she has evidence to prove her claims.
In asking this question AFTER the FBI investigation issued their report, Hostin isn't simply talking about people not believing Ford, but rather about why Kavanaugh isn't being punished for having been accused of what Ford says he did.
The precedent the Left wishes to create with the Kavanaugh case is that "all women should be believed" should be taken to mean "all women tell the truth and are right" when accusing someone of something. That is what I took Hostin to mean by that question. "Why isn't Kavanaugh being punished? Why isn't Ford's testimony not enough to punish him?"
That is what she ultimately means by asking this question. The problem she has isn't actually that Ford isn't believed – she is. The problem is that Kavanaugh isn't being punished just because they want him to be. And notice how she mentions "my truth". Not "the truth", but "my truth" as though truth is subjective.
But that's beside the point. The point is that, in this Kavanaugh case, the Left wants to set the precedent that all women should be taken as telling the truth even if they don't present evidence of their claims, and the man being accused should immediately be destroyed.
Hostin asks since when is the claim not enough to destroy someone? As far as I know, since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215.
One of the Magna Carta's clauses (of the original 63) reads as follows: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land… To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."
Basically, it's a clause guaranteeing English subjects the right to justice and a fair trial. But of course, this is the Magna Carta, a British charter and constitution. We live in America, under different laws. Right? Well, the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution saw the Magna Carta as a great document for a free people to guard against oppression (if enforced). So they saw fit to add a similar clause to our 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So if you want to ask since when is a woman's "truth" not enough to punish someone? The answer would be: since 1789, when the Constitution of the United States was implemented.
We have due process for a reason. If I were to say that Elizabeth Warren sexually assaulted me a decade ago and provided no evidence or witnesses to corroborate my accusation, she should not be penalized in any shape, manner or form.
If I were a woman and were to make a similar claim against Cory Booker, again providing no witnesses or evidence, he should not be penalized for it.
Under due process, we are penalized for crimes we committed, not crimes others say we committed. We are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
And the word of a woman, without any corroborating evidence or witnesses, should not be worth more than the word of the man she is accusing. We are equal under the law for a reason: to avoid horrible injustices that the Left wants to implement now.
About a month and a half back, before this entire thing with Kavanaugh started, there was a case in Connecticut about a woman pleading guilty to having falsely accused two Sacred Heart University football players back in 2016.
In the world the Left wants to live, those two football players would be sentenced for rape and be imprisoned for 5-10 years (the usual sentence for rape). Despite the allegations having been false, the Left's court system would have punished those two, while the accuser would have been seen as a survivor of rape.
And there are other cases out there about women having falsely accused men of rape, and even times when the man actually is found guilty, despite not having actually done it. I won't get into those particular cases, but they should be pointed out.
Under the kind of judicial system the Left wants to implement, any man would immediately be seen as a predator and would have to prove his innocence rather than the accuser having to prove his guilt.
That sort of system is the polar opposite of justice. But hey, that's the Left for you. No justice for anyone they don't like.
Hitler would be proud.
Psalm 106:3
"Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!"
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It is a compilation of the week's articles put together into a single email delivered to your inbox. And as the name suggests, it's completely free. No hidden fees, nothing unjust. Check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli 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...
January 2019


text:
When you are renting a 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 yard dumpster, you want a company you can trust with prices that make you smile. Give us a call today and see the difference we can make in your next construction or clean out project.
Simply give us a call and we will help you figure out your dumpster rental needs.
Our dumpsters usually go out same-day or next-day depending on when you call.
We provide top-notch service, while going easy on your bottom line. What more could you ask for?
Our trained operators are here to give you a fast and hassle-free experience from start to finish.
Once you are done, simply give us a call and we will get your dumpster picked up right away!
Our staff is here to help whenever you need it. Simply pick up the phone and give us a call.
Most cities or municipalities do not have many regulations regarding dumpster rental as long as you keep the dumpster entirely on your own property during the rental period. If you need to place your container on the street in any way, you will likely have to obtain a permit from the appropriate building permit office in your town. You can check with your local public works department to be sure.
Most Pawtucket dumpster rental companies will take care of securing this permit for you if you rent from them. Make sure that if you're planning to put the dumpster on the street, the company has made the appropriate arrangements. You should also ensure that you get the permit in a timely manner and at the correct cost. If you thought the dumpster company was getting a permit and they did not, you will be the one who will have to pay the fine that is issued by the authorities.
Moreover, you may need to know very well what types of providers they provide. You may need to know how these people handle dumping your removal. Do they feature a big vehicle lift this and get rid of it into your back, like most garbage vehicles? Or do they really come and obtain the removal and take it off allowing you a brand new a single to take it's place? They are things than can affect the price tag on your product so you undoubtedly want to look into that prior to call and order ones rental.
Having a Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RI to get rid of harmful squander is a simple however extremely effective way of eradicating unwanted substances from the general living room. The need to become more thrifty within the ways we all dispose of squander are so widely sought after from the general public which even the Usa Government is providing substantial positive aspects to tax payers that recycle. Everyone is seeing the good thing about doing operator as it offers to do with spend management. Imagine if there were very difficult ways to get rid of waste materials inside a neighborhood, group, city, etcetera.
The companies supplying Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RI and garbage trash can rental services home the garbage within an eco friendly technique. They even consider the garbage and reuse it. Therefore you get rid of the waste in an eco-friendly method.
It happens to the best of homeowners these days. Life becomes busy and stuff commences to pile up. Before you know it, your little storage regions have been absorbed by the monuments of cast-off property. So end making justifications about the chaos in your life and commence making a big difference with one particular phone call to ones hometown trash hauling assistance. Ideal for organizing single-family garages or perhaps basements, present-day residential-sized dumpsters are the solution to all of your household garbage and trash removal requires, including: Once you purchase the materials to get your renovating started on ones Victorian home, carry on to throw away all of the boxes, plastic material wrap, froth, etc., within the dumpster you have rented to remodel ones Victorian home.
Just about any indoor renovating can add way up to a lot of garbage. Once you remodel areas of your kitchen you can have quite a huge load regarding junk. Updating cabinets having fresh updated cabinets is a large starting. Replacing all of the molding at your residence is a big task and you will need a ton of space in a dumpster to put it all away. Wood gates or any other sort of doors may be thrown away within the small, choice or huge dumpster as well.
At any time watch the television show Cleanse Sweep and want that cleaning your home building project may very well be so easy? Leasing a dumpster to get a remodeling initiatives and for removing construction materials is the solution. Removing debris is going to be much bigger than an individual thought. Leasing a personal dumpster is a brilliant way to haul away those extracted materials away from your property. Better yet the professionals have made the entire rental process incredibly convenient and they give low rates that enable cleanup to become affordable as well as simple.
Most well-respected as well as professional construction companies keep a tidy internet site. Even home owners with their first demo career ahead of all of them will try as well as organize their own yard in order to move around without having stepping in old 2x4s with claws running trough all of them, or older and well-defined pieces of material, etc. Furthermore, construction junk is a real danger to any spouse and children or member of staff. This is where a new roll down dumpster comes in extremely handy.
You will need a Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket when you are redecorating your first home. Whether it be redecorating your kitchen to update it or to enlarge a current bathroom, a new dumpster will definitely end up being needed.
When you arrange a new dumpster for rent, you select the day as well as time that you would like to have it dropped off outside of your property. Make sure that you have a very clear place to put it and also a clear area around it. You want to make sure that you will get to it quickly. Arrange to own it there before beginning to ensure that you chose the right dimensions, that you have place for it, and you could get started.
The dumpster is an U . s . term which means a garbage can. This garbage can is cell and can thus be transferred around. The leading function of a new dumpster is stocking trash for a short moment of time before it's emptied into a garbage truck that comes around maybe two times a few days depending on your agreement. These kinds of dumpsters are used for disposal many kinds connected with waste material and also recycling uses. Apartments, schools, businesses, workplaces and industrial sites get dumpsters to store waste. Front loading-trucks, which may have large prongs are widely-used to empty these kind of dumpsters. They have hydraulics used for lifting your dumpsters and then make use of them to unfilled its contents in the vehicles hopper.
Remaining faithful to one rental corporation would be the very best decision made. This is because because they are a regular customer, you are more likely to get discounts and special treatments. When shopping for one, be sure that it is a trustworthy company which offers limitless solutions. It therefore has to be specialized enough by having a logo. A brand logo is used to differentiate in between good and bad corporations. It should provide timely solutions without waiting times hence really should have created a good reputation. The way customers are handled is what is used to judge you can actually name. Simply no Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket company includes a right to use the clientele. The prices are extremely competitive and really should be economical to anyone. If you want to find the least expensive price, it truly is better to get a community held rental rather than a privately owned rental. Community based mostly ones will forever provide the ideal for the culture and also present back to the same culture. There is always delight in experiencing your fee being used to the benefit of your area.
Removing junk from the home of a compelling hoarder is no uncomplicated task-it not only requires a great deal of actual labor, yet it is also a very hard emotional difficult task for the hoarder, their own family, as well as anyone who has any kind interest in the constant maintenance of the property or home in question. Of these major junk removal careers, especially those under time constraints, may be necessary as a way to speed up the method and spare homeowners more expenses for instance dumping fees and the petrol used to travel load immediately after load connected with trash to your transfer station.
As a dedicated Do it yourself enthusiast is a great way to reduce the amount of money you may spend fixing up your house. It virtually means you can find a fixer upper at a great price instead of paying lots of money for the "perfect" house. Unfortunately, what's more, it means you're going to be hip deeply in construction waste! This is a quick guide to Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RI, hauling garbage to the land fill and what the particular EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has to say regarding your home improvement.
You receive the roofs estimate many settled and get the construction business to do the work. The construction business informs you that the Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RI will be desired. You give appropriate ahead although let them know that you will shop around for the greatest price. The development company provides you with a few business names they may have used in yesteryear. You do a little shopping around and even uncover another business that is perhaps less expensive.
All sorts of business needs some sort for Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RIs because of its property. The Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RIs program and size dumpster required by a selected business depends on the nature of economic. Dumpster rentals providers offer various pickup options such as each day, weekly, or even event regular pickups. These firms also rent away specialty dumpsters (created especially for recyclable goods) to your businesses. If you require a compacting dumpster for boxes and also cardboard objects, you can rent these people from the very same waste operations company of which rents away any other type of dumpster.
A few of the top reasons to get a Construction Dumpster For Rent in Pawtucket, RI, are: Garbage assortment, vegetation eradication, dirt and also concrete eradication, brick and also roofing eradication, block eradication, medical waste materials or asbestos fibers, tree providers, just plain crap removal, and also recycling.
Restricted items in Dumpster: There are various items which you can not dispose with dumpster. The item record may vary by location to location. This list is created by simply rental Company and also government per the rules and also regulations of local government. Mostly prohibited object include fuel, oil, coloring, car tire, car battery power, asbestos, just about any inflammable liquid, just about any hazardous waste materials etc. Thus make sure to enquire about the list of prohibited objects from rental business as getting one of those items in dumpster can lead a person in paying extra money.
Industrialization results in major part of environmental pollution, but bankruptcy attorney las vegas other types of waste age group such as house hold waste materials, construction waste materials and environmentally friendly yard waste materials. Initiation should be taken in each sector to mitigate the effects pollution by simply recycling created trash. Dumpster rental agencies will be your best choice to defend against this waste materials and reward your long term generation having polluted free of charge and monetarily developed community.
Once the completely new carpeting is actually laid and each of the cabinets are updated and also any other remodeling you had carried out, you can now start to toss away any old home furniture you no longer would like. Throw the aged furniture in the next day dumpster that you rented. It's simple to move in the current furniture to complete the new seem you are going for. Get rid of just about any plastic put, boxes, and so on., by throwing it in the rented dumpster.
Please use the form below to contact us. We look forward to working with you and will get back to you as soon as possible. All fields are required

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pfizer Inc. Tuesday said revenue fell 2% in its latest quarter to $12.78 billion as some of the company's legacy drugs lost patent protection in various key markets, though executives also blamed one-time factors and voiced optimism about prospects for the year.
Pfizer's revenue got a bump from newer products like lung-cancer drug Ibrance and blood-thinner Eliquis, whose sales rose more than 50% each. But such gains weren't enough to make up for declining revenue from old workhorses such as the antidepressant Pristiq, which...
Most Popular Videos
Most Popular Articles
Utah Shows How Labor-Force Growth Fuels Economic Growth
Cohen Hired IT Firm to Rig Early CNBC, Drudge Polls to Favor Trump
Opinion: What Bruce Ohr Told the FBI
How the Wealthy Like Jack Benny Avoided a 70% Tax Rate
Special Counsel Disputes BuzzFeed Report Alleging Trump Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress