Free speech is something we usually enjoy in the United States (when social media isn’t infringing on it, at least) thanks to the First Amendment rights protecting freedom of speech among other rights provided in that amendment. However, freedom of speech is more limited in countries like France, where it is outright illegal to “incite hatred and attack dignity” according to French President Macron, severely limiting freedom of speech and allowing for what happened to a French teenager to happen the way that it has.
 
Let me provide some context first. Back in January 18th, a 16-year-old French girl was doing a livestream on Instagram, showing people how she did her make-up (something plenty of girls around that age do in this era). The girl, whom we’ll refer to simply as Mila due to her young age, recounted the events of that particular livestream to the host of a chat show called Le Quotidien (The Daily), where she said: “A guy was hitting on me heavily during the live, telling me ‘you’re beautiful, you’re hot, what age are you?’”
 
Following that, she informed her viewers that she was a lesbian and that “blacks and Arabs” were not her type. This, she says, prompted a series of insults and threats thrown her way, with someone who identified themselves as a Muslim calling her a “dirty lesbian” and a “dirty whore.” You know, nothing but love from the “religion of peace.”
 
With the insults and threats thrown her way, Mila stood her ground and began to go off on the entire religion of Islam, saying: “The Koran is a religion of hatred, there is only hatred in it. Islam is s**t, your religion is s**t,” and then went on to describe lewd things she would do to the Muslim god.
 
A couple of things to say about this. First, not sure if there is an error in translation or what, but of course, the Koran is not the religion itself. It’s the “holy” book that Muslims follow in their faith.
 
Second, she isn’t lying when she says that it’s full of hatred. Of course, not every single verse in the Koran reads: “kill infidels”, but it very much justifies violence and hatred against those who are not Muslims.
 
Sura (chapter) 2:190-193 in the Qu’ran reads: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you… and slay them wherever you catch them… and fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.” So the Koran tells Muslims to “fight” the “enemies of Allah” wherever they appear, even going so far as to kill them if necessary.
 
Sura 4:101 reads: “For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.” This is a direct call to recognize anyone who is not Muslim as an open enemy to Islam, so the aforementioned 2nd chapter becomes more “justified” in their eyes. And there are plenty more passages in the Koran that speak of fighting the enemies of “Allah”, plenty of which are fairly gruesome in detail as to what Muslims should do to the “unbelievers.”
 
The Koran justifies the use of violence, even as far as killing their enemies. Muslim apologists might try and argue that the Koran says to do it if in the case of self-defense or in the case of oppression, but look at the state of the Middle East today and tell me how exactly that’s worked out. If they had to kill to save their own lives, that’s one thing. But they consider even insults to Mohammed a direct attack on Islam and to kill those who insult Mohammed is considered “self-defense.” If you remember, back in 2015, a French satirical publication was attacked by Muslims, with at least 12 casualties, because of a caricature contest to draw Mohammed. Insulting the “prophet” is seen as a crime punishable by DEATH in Pakistan and the “prophet” himself, when he was alive and running Medina, allowed the killing of people who mocked or ridiculed him.
 
And in the case of oppression, they considered the U.S. going into the Middle East to find bin Laden and fight against al-Qaeda an “invasion”, with Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini using the argument of “oppression” from the U.S. as a justification for attacking our armed forces.
 
So when the girl says that the Koran is filled with hatred, she isn’t wrong in the least. Muslims find justification in vile acts of terrorism and genocide in their Koran. Obviously, most Muslims don’t actually do that, otherwise the entire world would constantly be attacked by Muslims 24/7, but the point remains: the Koran justifies hatred and extreme violence.
 
But following the pushback by the French teenager, Muslims, obviously, were extremely livid and eventually, her home address and school address were published online. According to HotAir.com: “The video was widely shared on social media, where it elicited more threats, including of death and rape.”
 
A senior member of the French Council of the Muslim Faith told French radio: “You reap what you sow”, adding that the girl “asked for [the threats]”.
 
Like I said, the Koran justifies this, so this senior member of the Council of Muslim Faith feels justified in saying “you reap what you sow” regarding death and rape threats towards the 16-year-old girl. “If you insult Islam, you deserve to be threatened and even killed,” is the message here.
 
Now, I personally do believe the comments were a bit too vulgar (though not untrue), but considering the insults and threats thrown her way both before and after those comments, I would 100% have to side with the girl here. It is outrageous that people would insult her and threaten her like this for stating her opinion, roughly-stated as it may have been and offensive as it may have been.
 
Of course, like I said in the title, it prompted a debate regarding free speech in France, with free speech thankfully winning out in the end, with even socialist Macron saying she had the right to say what she said, crude as it may have been.
 
Thankfully, the girl is safe (as far as we know right now) and has moved schools, with protection from the government. She likely would be far safer if the country of France didn’t just have open borders for criminals and terrorists to enter freely, but this is the idiocy the French people have voted into office.
 
I pray that the girl stays safe and that she would turn her life over to the Lord Jesus, so that she might be saved once she does eventually pass.
 
Psalm 4:8
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The Left often tries to argue that they are the clear majority in this country (despite another poll showing the very few number of liberals in this country) and that what they think about and the way they think about those things are what the vast majority of Americans think about and the way they think about them. For example, they believe the vast majority of Americans want to get rid of the 2nd amendment and often lose nights of sleep because of this “issue” in our Constitution. That is, of course, nowhere close to true, but this is how the Left operates.
 
So it is no surprise that they would believe that the vast majority of Americans are deeply concerned with the state of our planet and what we are “doing” to it. They believe that if their candidates run on the “issue” of climate change, that they are practically guaranteed to win most seats and most states in the country because oh, so many people must be just as concerned about it as they are and are willing to rid themselves of all their rights and freedoms to give to the government so that they can “come up with a solution” to the “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” or whatever else these commies are calling it.
 
However, reality is VERY far from what the Left says it is (not that that should come as a surprise to anyone. When has the Left ever been right about anything?).
 
According to a Pew Research Center poll, 44% of Americans told Pew that “dealing with global climate change” should be a top priority for Trump and Congress to tackle. On its own, that seems like a fairly decent number of people and like what I was saying up to this point was entirely wrong, right? Well, it would appear as such on its own, but definitely not when compared to other issues.
 
You see, Pew Research Center gives surveyors a list of issues or topics to rank on a priority scale.
 
Here are the other topics that Pew gave to surveyors:
 

• Strengthening the economy (70%)
• Reducing healthcare costs (69%)
• Improving the educational system (68%)
• Defending the country from future terrorist attacks (67%)
• Taking steps to make the Social Security system financially sound (67%)
• Taking steps to make the Medicare system financially sound (67%)
• Dealing with the problems of poor and needy people (60%)
• Protecting the environment (56%)
• Dealing with the issue of immigration (51%)
• Improving the job situation (50%)
• Reducing crime (50%)
• Dealing with drug addiction (49%)
• Reducing the budget deficit (48%)
• Addressing race relations in this country (46%)
• Strengthening the U.S. military (45%)
• Improving the country’s roads, bridges and public transportation systems (45%)
• Dealing with global trade issues (39%)

 
“Dealing with global climate change” squeezes in between improving roads, bridges and public transport and dealing with global trade issues, at 44%. That puts it in 17th place out of 18 total places for it to go.
 
Of course, there is also the “protecting the environment” issue much higher, but that’s not strictly a Leftist thing. People on both sides of the aisle want to protect the environment because we know that we can affect it greatly. What we can’t affect is the weather, which is what the Left and the native Americans of old believe(d). What we can’t affect is our GLOBAL climate. We can affect our local ecosystems, environment, etc. Just look at the literal craphole San Francisco and L.A. are turning into. But we can’t affect the global climate and people understand that other things ought to be prioritized more.
 
By the way, I say “people” on both sides of the aisle to mostly talk about everyday Americans. It’s clear that the Left, as in the elected Left and those aspiring to run for office, do not care one wit about the environment, given the state of some of their cities. The fact the EPA hasn’t sued San Francisco for its roads made of crap is astonishing. But everyday Americans do tend to care for the environment and do not wish to harm it, regardless of what side of the political aisle they are on. So the fact that “protecting the environment” is higher than some of the other ones isn’t necessarily good news for the Left since they don’t own that talking point, at least not anymore (and again, they aren’t doing much of that anyway).
 
People want to take care of the environment, with some even naively believing they can do something about global climate change, but most wouldn’t go to the extremes the Left wants to take us to. What this poll shows us is just how much more the economy and other topics are to the average person than turning this country into a socialist one to deal with a nonexistent threat.
 
Virtually every elected Democrat in this day and age wants to foundationally change the very system that has made America great in order to “fight climate change”. It’s stupid both in terms of effectiveness (it wouldn’t do a darn thing to help “fight” climate change and it would likely hurt the environment far more than help it, given their insane obsession over getting rid of CO2, which is essential for all life on Earth) and in terms of it being a selling point, as we can clearly see.
 
The VAST majority of Americans don’t want to turn this country into a socialist hellhole just to try to “fight” something that isn’t even a man-made issue at all. People want to prioritize the economic well-being of this country because when the country does well financially, so do most people. They want to focus on reducing healthcare costs because, after a decade of Obamacare, it’s clearly not been the “affordable care” that has been promised, not even a little.
 
They want to fix the education system because kids are learning useless things (I have yet to put into use my knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem or the fact that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell in any real life situation) that they largely won’t have to use in the real world unless they specifically go into professions that require such knowledge (knowing the aforementioned things I learned in school WOULD have been useful if I decided to become a mathematician or a scientist, but I am neither of those things and never will be).
 
They want to make sure that this country is safe from terrorism, want to ensure that Social Security doesn’t screw people, want to fix the costly Medicare system, want to help the poor and the needy (very Biblical, even if they do not recognize it), protect the environment, deal with a broken and abused immigration system that makes it far too easy for people to get in and many, many other things.
 
That’s not to say that they don’t care about climate change at all. But they definitely do not want to sacrifice things like economic well-being and security, which they would have to (even if not told) if they were to sign on to the radical Leftist ideals of the Green New Deal and other socialist schemes to strip people of their rights and their liberties.
 
This poll tells us that running on a campaign of “we’re going to save the planet” is not a big-time seller for most people. Running on the things Trump tends to run on, like economic well-being, is more important to the average voter than “let’s start eating roaches to protect the Earth”.
 
And by the way, this isn’t the only year that this line item has ranked so low on that poll. The poll began to ask about global warming in 2007, when it also ranked second-to-last. From 2008 to 2013, it ranked dead last, in 2014 and 2015, it climbed back up to second-to-last and in 2016, when Pew began to refer to it as “global climate change”, the topic did the best it ever has at an impressive… third-to-last. And in the years following, it has ranked second-to-last time and again.
 
This has never been a major selling point for Democrats, no matter what they believe, no matter what kind of climate puppet they prop up, no matter how many hours Leftist cable news spend on talking about how “we are killing our planet” and how it’s “literally on fire”. People are concerned (more than they should be, given the farce that this entire thing is), but won’t go full-on communist, giving up everything they own for “the better good”, and that isn’t a good thing for Democrats, especially going into 2020.
 
Psalm 111:10
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is one of those stories that fill me with concern but also with hope. I'm sure you'll understand the "concern" part easily, but the "hope" part perhaps is not as obvious. I'll get to that momentarily.

First, let me share with you the news circulating last week that Franklin Graham, the evangelical preacher son of Billy Graham, has been barred from 7 planned venues in his upcoming tour of the United Kingdom. The reasons provided by these venues? The supposed "anti-LGBT" views maintained by the preacher. Activist group "All Out" said on its website

"Graham travels around the world telling tens of thousands of people that Satan runs the LGBT+ movement. [...] Let's send a clear message to this US hatemonger that he's not welcome in London or the UK!"

To their credit, they do seem to understand that the basic message of sin is that Satan runs it...and that's the biblical message. Now, I don't know if Graham says "Satan runs the LGBT+ movement", but if he does, he would be consistent with what God tells us in the Bible. You see, Satan runs ALL sins, not just LGBT+ type of sin. He rules murderers, liars, pedophiles, cheaters, and generally speaking all sins. So in that regard, this particular group is being accurate as to who is to blame for all sin: Satan. The problem is they think they're being singled out, when in fact they're just one of many groups of sinners. What they fail to understand is that we ALL are sinners, not just them, and we need a Savior - that's Jesus.

After the ban, late last week, Franklin Graham sat down with UK's "Christian Today" (not to be mistaken for the NeverTrump "Christianity Today") for an interview. He said in this interview that his message is of love, not of hate. And that is, naturally, also consistent with the message of the Bible: it's about love. The love that Jesus has for us, to the point of laying his own life to pay for our sins.

One of the most quoted verses in the Bible is John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life". That's the Gospel. That's the good news. The bad news is we're all sinners. The good news is that if we trust Jesus, God the Father forgives our sins - no matter how terrible they may be.

So, activist group All Out knows Satan, but they don't know Jesus. And Franklin Graham wants to introduce Jesus to them, so they can be saved too. That is a message of love.

Among the many things he discussed in the interview with Christian Today, which I recommend you to read, is Religious Freedom. Here's what Franklin Graham said to the British publication:

"What I'm concerned about, though, is that if we don't stand up for the right to free speech and freedom of religion, there are lots of churches in this country that meet in public who are at risk. They could be kicked out, they could be forced to go somewhere else, just because of their faith."

Naturally I agree with Graham's concern. But, you see, that's the least of the Church's concerns. While persecution is no fun, the truth is we rest in Christ. We are saved. When we die, we'll go to heaven and enjoy God in a way that the unsaved will never know. So the biggest problem with jeopardizing Religious Freedom is not so much persecution itself but rather the fact that these groups, like "All out" who clearly accept the fact that Satan does exist, will never have the chance to know Jesus - at least not in this life. In the next life, they're all going to meet Him and they won't like where they're headed. Again, it's not just about LGBT - it's about all unbelievers. All of them will have no chance of ever knowing Jesus and His redemptive work while here on Earth. It's the very people who are persecuting us that will suffer the most in the end.

When Graham says his message is of love, not of hate, what he means is that Jesus is the way. Groups like All Out are being deceived by Satan, who's a fallen angel and much smarter than human beings. They're being deceived and they will have a high price to pay, unless someone helps them hear the Truth. The Truth is that Jesus saves. The Truth is that, no matter what you did in the past or what you're doing now, you don't have to spend eternity in hell. And silencing Christians will only result in those who persecute us being utterly condemned forever. Graham wants to give everybody the good news - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Without Him, we're lost. The more they silence us, the worse their damnation is going to be. We're only trying to help them.

Now, I did say in the beginning of this article that this situation gives me hope. What's the hope that it gives me? Well, you see, when things get this bad in the world - tribulation that the Bible itself prophesies - what with Drag Queen story hours for little children, Superbowl halftime shows of utter vulgarity and so on, there are only two possible outcomes after all of this: either we're headed to a religious revival or to the Rapture of the Church. Either way, Jesus' second coming gets closer and closer. And that gives me hope.

Revelation 3:10
"Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth."

Author: Danielle Cross

It’s an utter shame that one Hollywood celebrity giving thanks to the United States military is so rare as to be fairly newsworthy, but this is where we are right now, given the communist hellhole that is Hollywood. But when it does happen, even despite the current situation in Hellywood, credit must be given where it’s due.
 
With the Oscars having happened last Sunday night, actress Renee Zellweger did something controversial: avoid attacking Trump, the country, white people or political dissenters. Matter of fact, she did three things in particular that are rare for the Hollywood crowd: thank the military, thank police (as well as firefighters and other first responders, but there is good reason I’m focusing on police) and take notice of the American dream that people, even immigrants (who are coming here legally and do not intend on being a financial burden for American taxpayers), strive to accomplish.
 
Renee Zellweger won an Oscar on Sunday for Best Actress for her role in “Judy”, a movie about acting icon Judy Garland, who is most famous for her role as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. This is what she said in her acceptance speech:
 
“Thank you to the Academy. Thank you for inviting me here alongside one of the most special collaborations and meaningful experiences of my life. My immigrant folks, who came here with nothing but each other and a belief in the American dream, how about this? Thank you to you. And I have to say that this past year of conversations of celebrating Judy Garland across generations and across cultures has been a really cool reminder that our heroes unite us – the best among us who inspire us to find the best in ourselves. They unite us.”
 
“When we look to our heroes, we agree. And that matters. Neil Armstrong, Sally Ride (an American astronaut), Dolores Huerta (a labor leader and civil rights activist), Venus, and Serena, and Selena (not sure who she is referring to here), Bob Dylan, Fred Rogers, Harriet Tubman, we agree on our teachers. And we agree on our courageous men and women in uniform who serve. And we agree on our first responders and firefighters. When we celebrate our heroes, we’re reminded of who we are as one people, united.”
 
She also went on to talk more about Judy Garland and the fact she was snubbed from getting the same award Renee had just won and mention that Garland was also a hero to her, after which she ended her speech.
 
But the speech, while fairly brief, is not bad at all, especially considering the communist garbage the other award winners gave (with one Oscar winner literally quoting the Communist Manifesto in her speech).
 
Now, this isn’t the first time a Hollywood celebrity has chosen to thank our servicemembers for their sacrifice or overall didn’t give a negative message about America in recent time. Chris Pratt has also done this, thanking servicemen and women, and Gary Oldman thanked the opportunity this country has given him to succeed at the Academy Awards almost two years ago. But given the utter vitriol one sees come from Hellywood on pretty much a daily basis and given just about each movie that has political subtext basically brought to the forefront, it is nice to hear at least one person in one of these award shows give the virtue-signaling a rest.
 
It is appreciated that some people actually do still seek the American dream without crapping all over the concept and the system that allows for people to achieve it. It is appreciated that someone would thank first responders (though she didn’t outright specify cops) due to the fact that many on the Left view police with utter disdain, believing them to all be racists and people who kill black and brown people for fun or for sport. It is appreciated that someone would thank the servicemen and women who choose to lay their lives on the line so that we can enjoy our freedoms and our safety from foreign adversaries due to how the Left often believes this country to be an imperial menace to the world, itching to go out and invade any small country and strip it of its resources, leaving behind dead bodies and people driven to poverty.
 
I doubt I am exaggerating in the way the Left, particularly those in Hollywood, view this country, the economic and political system in place, and the police and military members. The values you and I hold mean absolutely nothing to many of these people at best and are viewed as outright demonic at worst (which is richly ironic, considering their demonic pagan practice of sacrificing children for a golden idol). I don’t think Renee has the same values altogether that you and I do, as much of the speech still contained semblances of secularism (hero-worship was practically all over it and worshipping fellow human beings is, of course, idolatrous), but the fact that she at least gave thanks to those who sacrifice their lives for our freedom is worthy of recognition and praise.
 
The biggest headlines and stories won’t be about her speech. They will be about the “ultra-woke” messages given in the speeches of other Oscar winners. They will be about the same idiotic and erroneous environmental and communist messages that help no one and stand to heavily harm more people than help (as evidenced by literal history that these people refuse to learn from).
 
But Renee taking the time of her speech to thank servicemembers is, like I said, worthy of praise and recognition. She won’t make headlines in places like Vox or Time, etc., but this gesture is appreciated, even if it goes largely unrecognized by people who often hold contempt for those who serve in our military.
 
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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It’s no secret what I think about those who espouse the belief that we will surely die in the next 10 years if we don’t foundationally change everything about our system from capitalism to communism. I believe such people to be extremely ignorant at best and wickedly evil at worst, wishing to establish a system that would only work for them if they were actually in the government and were privileged enough to be a part of the 1% that exists in communist countries.
 
But one particular teen climate activist has come to the light, at least regarding climate activism, and recognizes the farce that the climate cult is. 14-year-old Sina (no last name for obvious reasons) is a girl who used to be an active spokesperson for Fridays for Future, a climate activism organization in Germany.
 
According to No Trick Zone, “Sina began her environmental activism by joining a demonstration against coal power plants, organized by Greenpeace and WWF, before getting involved as a press spokesperson in the FFF movement in March 2019. In the interview, she reports on cult-like control, censorship, hostility and left-wing infiltration.”
 
“By November 2019, she began questioning the movement. As press spokesperson, she says she recalls having an older organizer constantly standing at her side at the demonstrations to make sure she said ‘the right things’ when interviewed by radio or television.”
 
Sina told Grosse Freiheit TV (Great Freedom TV): “No matter what was asked, it had to be answered like this or like that” and we had to “sound dramatic and to not express any doubts about it.”
 
Explaining what the organizers told the spokeschildren to say to the media, Sina said: “We have to act immediately, otherwise things will go like so, and the world will fall apart if you don’t take to the streets, and those who don’t are to blame for the world collapsing and all such things that put pressure on people.”
 
Sina eventually explained to the interviewer of Great Freedom TV how she began to have doubts about what she was doing and what the organization was trying to do. According to No Trick Zone, “the sharp-witted teen explains how she began to have doubts about the movement when the question of a CO2 tax came up and her father had doubts about it. This made Sina think about the implications of shutting down the coal power plants and the financial implications.”
 
Sina explained that she came to the conclusion that “the demands were so dogmatic and radical” that “they could not really be implemented.” She also explains how she began doing a bit of research and came to the realization that the “97% consensus” was an utter farce, as I have explained in previous articles.
 
But once she began to have doubts, she made the one mistake you cannot afford to make when surrounded by cult members: voice those doubts and ask questions. Once she actually brought up the points and began to ask questions, instead of being told some b.s. talking point or try to bring up some b.s. data to try and “answer” her questions, she was called a “Nazi” (which is pretty rich coming from German socialists) and a “climate denier”, as well as a “future destroyer”.
 
This is what led her to leave the cult and sound the alarm over its behavior. Not that this is any surprise to me – this is how all cults work. Instead of using data to support their argument, they use insults to alienate the girl and try to scare her into submission. The mentality is: “You don’t want to start questioning us, or you will forever be counted as our enemy and be added to the list.” What list you may ask? All communists have a list of targets for elimination.
 
Questioning what the communists are attempting to do labels you an enemy and gets you added. But regardless, let’s return to the interview.
 
Eventually, Sina described how she saw the FFF, saying: “In my view, it has a sort of cult character because you have to have that opinion. Otherwise you’ll be insulted out, if you will… They make demands without even thinking about solutions and thinking about the consequences of immediately exiting coal power.”
 
She also adds: “High taxes isn’t going to buy the CO2 out of the air.”
 
I have a few things to say about this.
 
First, she is absolutely right about the cult character. You cannot have a dissenting opinion or stray thought, or even question the desires and objectives of the cult. You have to have a like-mind and if you don’t, you’ll be insulted right out of it. You’ll be called a Nazi because that is just about the only insult they can come up with, not knowing anything about what it actually means for someone to be a Nazi. If you begin to even ask a valid question, such as “what’s with the fact that the ‘97% consensus’ thing isn’t real?” you won’t receive a valid answer, only insults and accusations. That’s because they do not have a valid answer, so they resort to insults, as the fool tends to do.
 
Second, she is also right about the fact that they do not think about the consequences of their desired actions. If we eliminated ALL coal and fossil fuel use right this moment, cities would go dark, vehicles would stop moving, farm equipment would stop functioning, supermarkets would quickly run out of food and in a matter of weeks, people would begin to scavenge the streets for food because no new food is being delivered to the now-dark supermarkets.
 
Basically, the entire country would turn into Venezuela in a matter of about a month. Of course, this is the result of magically eliminating all coal and fossil fuels. In order to even get to that point, you would have to “immediately” exit coal power, as Sina said, but that is not really possible. Even if you outlaw all sources of CO2 (that aren’t humans or animals), it’d be a bit difficult to enforce such a law. Sure, coal power plants would be forced to shut down, but vehicles would still be used. People would have to get electric vehicles but you run into a series of problems. First of all, electric vehicles cost money. And if they are the only legal vehicles out there, prices will immediately skyrocket for them, particularly as auto makers would lose money from not being able to sell gas-powered cars anymore.
 
For the consumer, that means forking over an extremely high amount of money to replace the car they currently have, and since there are far more people than electric cars out there, that would create a massive surplus. However, you eventually run into a brick wall in the form of manufacturing. No matter the kind of vehicle being made, manufacturers have to rely on fossil fuels to make new vehicles. This creates a massive problem for the vast majority of the country: the first few people lucky enough to be able to get a car will pay a lot, but without new manufacturing, there is a finite number of possible cars to be made. This brings up even more demand, which brings up the prices of the cars, and this is without even mentioning the fact that even electric cars need fossil fuels in order to be recharged.
 
There are plenty more disastrous consequences of “immediately” or even just altogether exiting fossil fuel usage that I am failing to mention here, but I believe the point has been made: you LITERALLY cannot outlaw fossil fuel usage without completely halting our entire country’s civilization. You would only be able to do this with a viable alternative source of energy, and there is nothing out there that can produce as much as fossil fuels can and to the same extent. Nuclear power is a close second, but even that cannot be used to power vehicles, as even the smallest of nuclear reactors in the world are too large for an average-sized vehicle.
 
But this is why Sina says that the cult does not think about the consequences of their desired actions. They just see the fake news garbage that “the world is literally on fire” and arrive to the extreme conclusion (with help from Marxists in schools and the media) that we must upend our entire economic system, immediately stop using fossil fuels and we will magically save the Earth from ourselves.
 
Even Dr. Seuss wrote more realistic narratives than what the climate cult is driving.
 
In any case, Sina finished the interview by advising people to just “do a little research.” She described how “dissent is absolutely not tolerated by the movement in any way,” as I explained earlier in the article, and that some school teachers “couldn’t understand” why she left the cult. She also explains that some of her radical classmates confronted her and continued to insult her, saying things to her like: “If you don’t take part, then it will be your fault that none of us will have a future and we’ll all die.” Her response to her was simply “do a little research,” but I would like to say something about that sort of attitude such classmates are giving her.
 
It is absolutely disgusting the effects the climate cult is having on children. They are being led to believe they will literally have no future and will die an early death due to climate change if people like Sina or me or other NORMAL, LOGICAL PEOPLE don’t submit to the insanity of the cult. They are scaring children half to death with this unscientific lunacy and it’s an absolute disgrace. We can see, in real time, Satan’s hand at work in the hearts and minds of these impressionable children who do not really know any better.
 
Sina, to her credit, has a good head on her shoulders and recognized the disgusting and erratic nature of the climate cult. As time goes on, I hope she continues learning the truth and eventually comes to the Truth of Jesus Christ, if she isn’t already there.
 
I pray that more and more children come to see the ugly face of the climate cult and see it for what it is.
 
Ephesians 6:12
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As if the Left didn’t have enough things to be perpetually angry about, this week has been particularly tough for Democrats, and even though I am not supposed to allow my heart to rejoice when my enemy stumbles, I am going to be at least a teensy-weensy bit happy about recent developments, particularly as some are coupled with rather good news.
 
Let us begin with Garfield’s least favorite day: Monday, when the Democrats began the apparently semester-long process of running an Iowa caucus and declaring a winner.
 
Even though a winner should have been declared by that night (and the Republicans had no trouble at all calling the caucus in favor of Trump), it’s actually been a few days and the last thing I remember about it was someone saying that the process was about 97% done, with Bernie and Buttigieg being extremely close to one another, but with Buttigieg having a slight lead (so far). What I would like to point out is how extremely dubious this process has been.
 
It definitely didn’t help that the Democrats used a voting app developed by a company literally called Shadow Inc., which was founded by a woman whose husband is a senior strategist for Pete Buttigieg, who is coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally) one of the two most likely winners of this caucus. The app, reportedly, was a complete mess with not showing everyone who was on the ballot all too clearly, leading some people to have to vote for someone else instead of their favored candidate.
 
Now, to be fair to the company that literally sounds like they would be an evil corporation fighting Superman, the app wasn’t the only malfunction for the Democrats throughout the night. According to the Daily Caller: “An Iowa precinct secretary was just on the phone with CNN, got off hold with the Iowa Democratic Party to report his results, and was hung up on [by the DNC].”
 
So there were technical errors and human errors at play. Unsurprisingly, this led to Bernie supporters, who knew that going into the caucus their preferred candidate had a massive lead over everyone else, to get angry and storm out of the caucus, according to Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner.
 
He wrote: “So Sanders had more than twice as much support as any other candidate at [a particular precinct], but due to some savvy dealmaking and complicated delegate math, they ended up in a 5-way tie for delegates, one apiece. And they [Bernie supporters] were not happy.”
 
Of course, this led to much mockery online, with many on the Right making the point that “if Democrats can’t properly operate their own caucus and it’s this much of a mess, how can they be trusted to run our healthcare?” and things like that. Of course, given the shadiness of the entire thing, and given how blatantly obvious the DNC is in trying to keep Bernie from winning the nomination, I think it has less to do with horrendous incompetence and more to do with trying to rig things in their favor, delaying results until they are either more favorable to them or until Sanders comes out as the winner (which is the most likely scenario but Buttigieg still has a bit of a lead in delegate count, so it could go either way 97% in) but he has next to no momentum going into the New Hampshire caucus next week.
 
Now, I must say that I do not have any tangible evidence of such rigging of things. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to be THIS incompetent; it is within the realm of possibility. So I won’t say that they definitely are trying to rig this thing, but one cannot blame me for at least being suspicious of the way things are being handled. Their desire to keep Bernie away from the nomination is no real secret. That, paired with the fact they are employing a voting app run by someone with ties to one particular candidate, and that particular candidate is being reported as leading in delegate numbers, possibly rendering him the winner of the caucus and you can’t fault people for thinking the fix is in.
 
Biden is an extremely weak candidate who only looks weaker and weaker as time goes on, so Mayor Pete might be the establishment’s replacement for Biden.
 
Regardless, I’ve spoken plenty about this particular catastrophe for the Democrats and I wish to move on. Final thoughts, though: I cannot help but laugh at either the blatant rigging of the Democrats’ own primaries or the mind-numbing incompetence of an entire political party.
 
Now, let’s move on to something I’ve previously covered, and actually wrote about yesterday, so I don’t have too much to say about this: the President’s State of the Union address.
 
As I mentioned in my previous article, Trump destroyed the Democrats by simply pointing out his great success as POTUS and excoriated them for the dangerous socialist policies they wish to espouse such as the “sanctuary city” policies, the Medicare-for-All plan that will kick hundreds of millions of Americans off of their current health insurance, among other things.
 
He highlighted the booming economy that we are experiencing, and on that particular night, helped a little girl to receive a scholarship so that she could go to the school of her choice instead of a garbage government school, applauded the services of a man tragically killed by Soleimani while also celebrating the terrorist’s death (as well as al-Baghdadi’s death), and overall made the Democrats look like petty fools, with the queen of the fools sitting just behind him and to the left of him, when she decided to tear the speech in half (which could get her a criminal referral, but she’s a Democrat and they get away with whatever they want, so don’t expect anything to come out of this).
 
The State of the Union address highlighted the failures of the previous administration and accentuated the failures of the current Democrats by virtue of having Trump being the one to deliver the address. They failed to beat him in 2016; failed to get rid of him for 3 years, running on crap like the Russia hoax, campaign finance “violations”, a bad past with a porn star and most recently, with a Ukraine phone call that is out there for anyone to read and see that no criminal activity or intent was present in what the Democrats are calling a “constitutional crisis” (though they call literally everything Trump does a “constitutional crisis” so that term is quickly losing its luster); and were one night away from experiencing yet another failure: failing to remove him from office.
 
Which brings me to what happened on Wednesday, with the Senate vote to acquit the President of the United States for life.
 
This one, unfortunately, is not quite as bad as I wish it would’ve been for the Democrats thanks to the actions of a single man: Pierre Delecto aka Mitt Romney.
 
From the beginning of the impeachment sham, it was clear Trump was not going to be convicted of anything and that became more apparent as time went on. The Democrats and the media, however, were somehow convinced that there was a real possibility that Trump would be convicted. Some polls attempted to show that “a majority” of Americans wanted to remove Trump (but there was clear oversampling of Democrats in those polls, so they were fake news) and the media, with those dirty polls, deluded themselves into believing Republicans would be scared to the point of removing Trump to save their own careers.
 
But as time went on, even their own polls began to betray them, with people losing interest in impeachment and less people wanting to remove (again, according to their own polls). The Democrats failed to make any sort of convincing argument, particularly because the transcripts were released and available for anyone to see (though I suspect the Democrats didn’t expect Trump to release the transcripts, so that threw a wrench into their plans) and because the whistleblower, the guy who supposedly kickstarted this whole process, was never called in despite being the initial accuser of the President.
 
Of course, the Democrats COULDN’T call in the whistleblower because he had obvious ties to Adam Schiff and because it was made clear that the IG, an Obama holdover, changed the rules for whistleblowing from having to be a first-hand source to allowing for second-hand information to be considered valid whistleblowing, so calling in the whistleblower would’ve left the Democrats very vulnerable. All of these things made the impeachment even more shady and made it tougher for the obviously corrupt Democrats to try and convince people that Trump was the corrupt one.
 
Now, there is far more to the impeachment topic, such as the Democrats blocking the Republicans from calling in their own witnesses, Democrats only being able to bring up two extremely vague articles of impeachment and passing them both in an entirely partisan manner (with votes against impeachment having been bipartisan), Nancy holding the articles to try and get McConnell to do what she wants in a Senate trial (which was foolish from the start, but is about on par with this woman’s intelligence) and the Democrats wanting more witnesses despite the fact that they had every opportunity to call in as many witnesses as they wanted in the House if they didn’t rush impeachment like they did just so they could impeach Trump by Christmas. The entire thing was an exercise in futility and marred in corruption and stupidity, but that is the Democrat Party’s MO, isn’t it?
 
As a result of all the tomfoolery going on here, the Senate voted to acquit the President for life on both charges, with the first article of impeachment – abuse of power – receiving a 52-48 vote (with Pierre being the only Republican voting to convict, making him the first idiot senator ever to convict a president of his own party) and with the second article of impeachment – obstruction of Congress – receiving a 53-47 vote, falling WAY short of the 67 votes the Democrats needed to remove Trump by 19 votes and 20 votes respectively.
 
So the Democrats made themselves look like idiots at best and cheaters at worst on Monday, petty and anti-American fools on Tuesday and pathetic failures on Wednesday who are, in all likelihood, going to suffer major losses come November as a result of this impeachment sham (coupled with the fact that not a single Democrat presidential candidate has any hope of beating Trump, especially if the Democrats steal the nomination away from Bernie again, thus angering his base once again).
 
The only week that will be worse than this one for Democrats will be the week following Trump’s re-election.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The day after the hilariously blatant attempt by the Democrat Party to steal the nomination away from Bernie (again) in Iowa, President Donald J. Trump delivered his third State of the Union address, highlighting the multiple achievements his administration has accomplished and warning of the dangers of the Left’s insane ideologies in a number of ways (and, by the way, according to a CBS News poll, 97% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats and 82% of Independents all approved of the speech, which are the same numbers as 2019's SOTU).
 
The President highlighted the successes his administration has had on the economy, seeing a roaring economy taking place across our nation:
 
“The unemployment rate for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans has reached the lowest levels in history… African-American youth unemployment has reached an all-time low. African-American poverty has declined to the lowest rate ever recorded… The veteran unemployment rate dropped to a record low… The unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low.”
 
Of course, the Democrats could not be bothered to stand up and cheer this because they do not care about the welfare of this country if they are not the ones that can boast about it. During the Obama years, we experienced a period of economic stagnation and were even told by the POTUS himself that the best days were behind us and that that was the “new normal”. The American people refused to buy that b.s., which is one of the biggest reasons Trump got elected, and as with many other promises, Trump has kept his promise to make America’s economy great again.
 
The period of economic stagnation seems like ages ago and we are witnessing an economy that is roaring like never before, what with great annual and monthly GDPs, unemployment rates continuing to reach new lows across multiple demographics, consumer confidence being at decades’ high, the stock market reaching new heights, people’s wages going up especially for those in lower-income households and 7 million new jobs being created, with 3.5 million working-age people joining the workforce. The fact that Democrats refused to stand up and applaud this, even going so far as to deny that these things are happening (which at this point is like trying to deny the force of gravity) says plenty about them but we’re not done showing the pettiness and disgusting nature of the Democrats.
 
President Trump also made a number of surprise moves during the speech.
 
For instance, he awarded a scholarship to a fourth-grade girl to send her to a school of her choice, as opposed to forcing her to go to a failed government school: “Janiyah, I am pleased to inform you that your long wait is over. I can proudly announce tonight that an Opportunity Scholarship has become available, it is going to you, and you will soon be heading to the school of your choice.”
 
Because this highlighted the potential for school choice for children, the Democrats refused to stand up and applaud this. They are more than happy to send that young girl to a crappy school so that she would be indoctrinated and given such poor education that she becomes totally dependent on the government for assistance. They would be more than happy to ruin the girl’s life forever if it meant she was a slave to the government and the Democrat Party.
 
The President also reunited an Army wife with her husband in a moment that people tend to love seeing online.
 
He also awarded conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his great contributions to this country. El Rushbo had recently announced on his show that he had “advanced lung cancer” and that he would, unfortunately, miss a few days every now and again to receive treatment. Having been on the radio for over 30 years, Rush is basically a trailblazer for conservative media now-a-days. Without him, much of the fake news media that had a monopoly on information before the 1990s would likely still have such a monopoly and conservative shows and publications would likely not be where they are today without him, so as a result, the President honored him with the highest civilian honor he can bestow, and it is much deserved.
 
The President also noted that in attendance was Venezuela’s legitimate President, Juan Guaido, who is still trying to wrestle away the power that the current illegitimate ruler, Nicolas Maduro, possesses. While this is not likely to do much in the short-term, it goes to show that the President of the United States recognizes the legitimacy of Guaido as President of Venezuela. That can go a long way.
 
The President also honored one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, celebrating his bravery and noting that newly-promoted General Charles McGee’s own grandson wished to follow in his grandpa’s footsteps, dreaming of joining the newly-formed Space Force. It’s worth noting that almost everyone in attendance applauded General McGee except for three nasty people: Ilhan “Married My Brother” Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI).
 
Other things the Democrats refused to applaud, you might ask (if you didn’t watch the SOTU)?
 
They, as mentioned previously, didn’t applaud the roaring economy and the record-low unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanics, women, the disabled, young workers, etc. because they do not actually care about minorities and never have.
 
They didn’t applaud the simple fact that America should not be a sanctuary for criminals, but for the law-abiding, when President Trump attacked “sanctuary city” policies that protect law-breakers at the cost of the safety of innocent civilians.
 
They didn’t applaud (though I don’t blame them) when Trump disparaged them for trying to take away the healthcare of 180 million Americans by forcing a socialist healthcare system.
 
They didn’t applaud the fact that USMCA was passed and signed into law, which honestly had me a tad confused. They had been trying to take away credit from Trump regarding this, but allowed him to take all the credit by not applauding its passage, even though it received great bipartisan support. I fully expected them to applaud to try and congratulate themselves a little and take away Trump’s credit, but by not doing that, they allowed Trump to receive all the credit for it. Make this political mistake #3 for them, after not applauding the strength of the union and the great economic numbers.
 
They also didn’t applaud the miraculous survival of an extremely premature baby, who was born at 21 weeks of pregnancy and is four years old today. They likely didn’t applaud this because they would’ve loved the chance to sacrifice that baby to Baal and were denied that opportunity because of pro-life policies. The President also made sure to mention the importance of protecting unborn babies because there is no denying the life that is inside the womb. Democrats are at the point where they will support abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, despite the fact that 1) the babies in the womb are ALIVE and 2) babies tend to be viable at around the time that that girl was born, which is around four months. For most of the pregnancy, a baby is viable and can live outside the womb (with varying levels of difficulty), and yet, demonic Democrats do not believe such people to be alive.
 
Given the chance, they would’ve added that little girl to the number of victims of this ongoing holocaust.
 
However, all the pettiness the Democrats displayed during the speech is dwarfed by the simple act of astounding pettiness that Nancy Pelosi demonstrated once the speech was over: ripping the speech in half, as seen in the picture at the top.
 
The woman is completely petty for a number of reasons. First of all, she is a massive failure and she knows it. She tried to get impeachment done as soon as possible because Trump was such a “danger” to the country that he needed to be promptly impeached in what can only be described as a bastardized process and a complete sham, calling in as many Democrat “witnesses” who witnessed nothing and could only give fifth-hand accounts at best and pure speculation and opinion at worst (and that’s what they usually did) while denying Republicans the chance to call on any of their own witnesses, only to hold off on delivering the TWO articles of impeachment that were so laughably vague even some of the Democrats’ witnesses were baffled by it because she couldn’t control Mitch McConnell and have her dream impeachment trial in the Senate.
 
What’s more, the only reason she launched and rushed this impeachment like this is because she felt pressured by far-Left idiots like the Squad, who all employ a system of redistribution of brain cells amongst one another, to do something when there was no way in Hell this was going to end well for the Democrats. She’s a failure not only as a politician, despite her multi-decade career experience, but as a “leader” too, since no one believes she is in charge of the Democrat House.
 
She failed to get bipartisan support for impeachment, only receiving bipartisan support AGAINST impeachment; failed to get her way in a Senate trial because she had no leverage at any point in her little one-woman stand-off with McConnell; failed to draw any type of support in favor of impeachment from the American people; failed to draw much INTEREST in what is usually considered a massive deal in American politics; and has now failed to get rid of President Trump (though snakes like Romney certainly tried to please her). She knew how big of a screw-up she was, which is part of the reason she refused to properly introduce the President to the House Chamber. She rationalizes that she tore up the speech for two reasons: one, Trump didn’t shake her hand (which is laughable because he also didn’t shake Pence’s hand but regardless of whether or not he did, she did not deserve the least bit of respect from the guy she was trying to oust) and two, that the speech didn’t contain any “truth” in it, despite the fact that the speech was entirely supported by facts.
 
Like I said, it’s undeniable that we have a roaring economy. The stats are right there. And even if you do want to contest these facts, there is no denying the facts presented regarding the people Trump celebrated. Ripping the speech in half and saying it was filled with lies greatly disrespects the Tuskegee airman and his grandson, the Army husband recently reunited with his family, the widow and family of a soldier killed by Soleimani, the President of Venezuela’s legitimacy and the miraculous life of a baby born at 21 weeks.
 
Even if you delude yourself to the point of contesting reality, you come off as extremely disrespectful by ripping the speech in half and saying that none of the pages held any truth to them.
 
Make this mistake #4 and the biggest one of the night for Democrats. The pettiness and ugliness of the Democrat Party at hearing great news of an America made great again was characterized by one simple action. That action also gives Republicans plenty more ammunition (of which they have a surplus at this point) to attack the Democrats for.
 
Maybe Nancy can try and excuse her actions and say that she mistook the speech for Iowa Caucus votes for Bernie?
 
Proverbs 29:11
“A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

There is nothing a communist won’t make illegal if it will allow them to have power over you and your family and if it helps them pay for one of their multiple luxurious homes. This is what communist lawmakers in New York have come to understand when they, effective this year, made it a FINEABLE OFFENSE to look up at the sky and stargaze.
 
If you think I am joking about just how utterly corrupt and messed up communists can be, I am sad to say that I am not making this up. In New York, effective this year, you must obtain a license costing $35 (for residents, $60 for tourists) if you wish to have the privilege of looking up at the sky.
 
According to Red State: “The Free Thought Project first reported on the story, explaining that ‘if citizens of the state wish to look up at the sky and view the stars at one of New York’s public parks, they will first have to obtain a “Stargazing permit”’. The site pointed out that pollution in the sky makes it more difficult for New Yorkers in ‘highly populated areas’ to see the sky at night, so they travel to remote areas, many of which are located in state parks.”
 
And according to the official PDF file from the state’s Parks Department, you are only allowed to use that permit at the following parks:

• Hither Hills (though you are not allowed to stargaze in the months of July and August).
• Jones Beach (and only in West End 2 and Field 6, so only in certain parts of that park).
• Montauk Point (only in the upper parking lot).
• Robert Moses (only in Field 2).
• Sunken Meadow (only in Fields 1 and 3).
• And Wildwood (only in the main parking lot).

 
So not only are you not allowed to stargaze wherever you wish with that unnecessary and stupid permit, instead having to go to specific parks, but you also are not allowed to stargaze outside of the specific areas listed in parentheses. Hither Hills seems to be the only park without area restrictions, but you are not allowed to stargaze in July and August, which seems particularly stupid, considering Independence Day falls in one of those months.
 
Are people not allowed to look up altogether when it’s nighttime? What if it’s cloudy and there are no stars to be seen? What about when you’re in the denser areas, where light pollution makes it impossible to look at the stars? What if the wind is blowing rather strongly and something flies off and you have to look up to look at it? What if a child commits this heinous crime of looking up? Will said child be forced to pay the fine, or will his/her parents have to cough up the money? What if a homeless man (of which there is no short supply in New York) looks up at night? In all likelihood, he would be unable to pay the fine. Is the alternative jail time?
 
Why do I have to ask all of these questions? Well, that last one is simple: communists gonna communist.
 
Seriously, whatever they can fine you for, tax you for or imprison you for, they will go ahead and do it. Looking up at the night sky? That’s a fine. Speaking your mind online? If it’s paired with information that the communists disagree with, that’s a prison sentence. Are being suspected of thinking anti-State thoughts? To the gulags with you.
 
There doesn’t need to be any rhyme or reason for such a law to be passed and a crime to be made out of something so completely unremarkable. Communists will make drinking water between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM illegal if they can get away with it (and if they can enforce it, which I also doubt they would be able to very effectively enforce this new asinine law). This is what happens when you elect into power people who believe the governed are subject to the government as opposed to the other way around. When people seeking power actually obtain it, they will do whatever they can to execute that power as much as they can in whatever way they can.
 
The Democrats practically own the state of New York. They can pass any law they want without much consequence. At worst, the people of New York will leave the state in droves, but that doesn’t fix anything and stands to make the places they move to as crappy as New York is.
 
When given as much power as this, Democrats show their true colors. If possible, they would turn the whole country into the same communist craphole that New York and Commiefornia currently are. They seek the ability to make and pass laws like this anytime they wish.
 
The aforementioned Red State figures that the real reason behind this is monetary. That the government of the state of New York is looking for another way to make money and “is needlessly restricting the liberty of its citizens to make a quick buck.” I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to pass stupid laws to make a quick buck, but I doubt that is the major reason behind this law simply due to how unenforceable this is.
 
Sure, police officers and park rangers might catch a few people doing it, but LOOKING UP is such a common thing for people that the vast majority of these “criminals” will get away with it. There are millions of people in New York, and while the NYPD has plenty of people in the force, there is no way they’d be able to patrol and catch people looking up at the sky at night and get absolutely everybody.
 
The cops already have their hands full looking out for REAL crimes, of which there are plenty in New York, without having to worry about looking for serial head raisers to bust. The New York lawmakers didn’t pass this law simply to make a quick buck. They did it because they could. They did it because this gives them a sense of power. Regardless of whether or not it yields them much money, they can feel like they are the God they largely don’t claim to believe in because they CAN.
 
Like I said, there doesn’t have to be any rhyme or reason for making anything legal or illegal in commieworld. They do things, not because they will be good for the people, or good for the government, but because they can. Who’s going to stop them from passing such asinine laws? Most people in New York are Democrat and will continue voting accordingly until they either move (provided they have the ability to do so) or get taxed to literal death.
 
This is what happens when you give people with zero morals the power to run any level of government.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

To no one’s surprise, Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who is, himself, protected 24/7 by an armed security detail, does not want you, the ordinary citizen, to be able to protect yourself. The privileged, old, rich, white male (as the Left would usually call someone like him) ran an ad during Super Bowl LIV making wild claims regarding “gun violence” while the ad does not even explain how any of Bloomberg’s policies would help the case at all. His sole aim was to demonize guns, the second amendment and, by proxy, anyone who supports it and owns guns themselves.
 
The one-minute ad exploits the tragedy of a woman who lost her son in a shooting in 2013 and makes the claim that “2,900 CHILDREN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR,” and, as you all know, yelling something immediately makes it true.
 
But despite the clear attempts at demonizing the second amendment and trying to scare people into giving up their rights (or the rights of their fellow Americans who own guns), reality is far different from what Bloomberg tried to make it out to be, as Fox News explained:
 
“However, a recent report from the Bloomberg-founded group Everytown for Gun Safety came up with that same number – but only when it included teenagers ages 18 and 19 in the calculation. Bloomberg’s advertisement makes no mention of older teenagers and suggests that the statistic is referring to younger children only. Washington Free Beacon reporter Stephen Gutowski found that once adults were removed from the calculation, the number dropped by nearly half.”
 
“Additionally, court documents from a Texas state appellate court reviewed by Fox News show that the victim referenced in the advertisement, George Kemp, was 20 years old at the time of his death.”
 
So that statistic of 2,900 children dying from gun violence every year is extremely misleading and not at all correct. Half of those “children” would usually otherwise be considered young adults. What’s more, Fox News also reported that “the court said the case arose from a ‘gang-related shooting,’ writing that ‘two groups of young men’ had met that night ‘for a fight,’ including a group led by ‘B. Dilworth, which included… Kemp.’”
 
So the 20-year-old “child” was not simply the victim of a random shooting. He was involved with a violent gang and died as a result of it. That is still absolutely tragic and devastating for his family, do not misunderstand. But it’s already illegal to commit gang-related activity and the guy was involved in a gang. Not to take away from the tragedy of his death, but I can’t imagine he didn’t expect that to at least be a possibility.
 
Regardless, returning to Bloomberg, it is extremely misleading because the victim his ad focused on wasn’t some random kid who was the victim of a random shooting by some psycho. He was in a gang and that, in and of itself, is illegal. The guy was going down the path of a criminal, if he wasn’t already on it.
 
Amy Hunter, director of media relations for the NRA, told the Daily Wire that she wasn’t surprised that Bloomberg “exploited the emotional story of a mother losing her son to push his gun control agenda without addressing whether his policies would have prevented the crime in the first place.” They definitely wouldn’t have, which is why Bloomberg didn’t mention that part, as he does not have any viable solution to that problem.
 
But what’s more, Reason Magazine reported: “According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FactCheck.org notes, the average number of firearm-related deaths involving Americans 17 or younger from 2013 through 2017 (the period used by Everytown for Gun Safety) was about 1,500, roughly half the number cited by Bloomberg. Furthermore, nearly two-fifths of those deaths were suicides, meaning the number of minors killed each year by ‘gun violence’, as that term is usually understood, is about 73% smaller than the figure cited in Bloomberg’s ad.”
 
That part is also something the gun-grabbing Leftists tend to ignore: the fact that most gun deaths in America are suicides, not homicides. The number of shootings, as we come to know them, is miniscule compared to the number of suicides by gun. Of course, that is still a problem, but not something that extreme gun control could possibly hope to fix.
 
The reality simply is that Bloomberg is a massive liar, exploiting the death of a young man by claiming he was a victim of gun violence, and that he was a kid, when in actuality, he was involved in gang activity which also involved guns and he was 20 years old. A tragedy, undoubtedly, which makes it all the more disgusting that someone would choose to politicize it and use it to scare people into giving up their guns.
 
2,900 children don’t die every year by gun violence. Half that number are legal adults and two-fifths of those were by suicide. To claim that guns are the culprit in any of those deaths is extremely disgusting and wrong.
 
As we have said time and time again when the topic arose, guns are merely tools. They can be used to cause harm, to oneself or another, but they can also help save lives. A school shooter uses his or her gun to cause harm. A law-abiding citizen prays they don’t find themselves in a situation where they have to use their gun, but will be willing to protect themselves and those they hold dear should such a situation arise. Those are called defensive gun uses, which the Left ignores like Joe is trying to ignore Hunter, because there are FAR more defensive gun uses every year than offensive gun uses, to the point where DGUs DWARF any other kind of gun use.
 
But as I said in the beginning, I am not surprised that the Leftist billionaire who is protected literally all the time by armed security would want to take away your guns and your rights. He doesn’t see you as a person seeking to protect yourself and your family. He sees you as, at best, an idiot and at worst, a massive danger to society as a whole.
 
But then again, the other candidates aren’t much different, are they? All of them, given the opportunity, would also seek to strip you of your rights, freedoms and ability to defend yourself. All of them are the very authoritarians they accuse Trump of being, if not more so.
 
Exodus 23:1
“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is a point that I have made many times in the past. Many on the Left have claimed there to be a “consensus” regarding the state of the climate and the “danger” of climate change. However, there are a couple of problems with that argument straight out of the gate.
 
First of all, even assuming they were right and the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed that climate change is real and that it’s an existential threat to humanity and the planet itself, that doesn’t mean a darn thing. Why? Because science ISN’T A DEMOCRACY. Consensus doesn’t equal scientific fact. We know this because for a very long time, people believed the Earth to be the center of the universe and that the Sun, the moon and the other stars, planets, etc. all revolved around it. This was the theory of Geocentricity. But eventually, it was discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as did the other planets in the solar system.
 
It doesn’t matter if the vast majority of people delude themselves and say that the sky is red. It doesn’t matter if scientists come out with “scientific data” that supposedly “proves” that the sky is red. Consensus doesn’t mean that something is fact.
 
Secondly and lastly, there is no actual consensus surrounding this topic anyway because the Left can’t pay off or intimidate every single scientist on the planet to parrot their talking points.
 
According to an article on No Trick Zone, “in 2019, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob… or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related ‘consensus’ positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.”
 
One of the papers No Trick Zone points to, which is about sea surface temperature over the past 2,300 years, reads as follows:
 
“The core-top SST (Sea Surface Temperature) value from MD07-3093 is 12.5°C… within the alkenone-SST calibration error of the modern-day mean annual SST (12.1°C) at the core site… The slight overestimation may be due to a small bias of the alkenone SST toward the spring and summer blooming season. Over the past 2,300 yr, SST values range between 14.3 and 12.2°C… and hence most of the record is warmer than today.”
 
In other words, the sea surface temperature in the Pacific was recorded to be WARMER in millennia past than it is today. So any warming that occurs from here on out is within normal parameters for the planet and not cause for panic.
 
This is why context is so important. If (when) the sea surface temperature increases, Leftists can claim a fictitious “victory” and claim “see, we told you! We were right all along about the warming sea temperatures!” While technically right, they ignore the fact that we are within the range of warming and cooling for the sea surface temperature (at least in the Pacific) and that any warming that occurs is perfectly normal. Just because the sea is warmer in some parts of the planet, or even if the planet in general is warmer today than decades ago, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
 
And if anything, the fact that we are within the normal range for the past 2,300 years goes to show how little impact CO2, at least anthropogenic CO2 (man-generated, in other words), has on the planet’s environment altogether. This is why this paper goes against the Left’s insane war against CO2. The chemical component is not the demon that the Left makes it out to be. In fact, without it, life on this planet wouldn’t be possible. We simply cannot, as a species, destroy our planet with CO2.
 
But let’s move on to some other examples of scientific papers going against the narrative established by the Left.
 
“The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica” reads the title of one of these papers.
 
“Until recently, the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica were among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth. Between the 1950s and 1990s temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased by more than 0.3°C/decade, with even higher warming rates reported for Byrd Station in West Antarctica. Since the late 1990s, however, this warming has essentially stalled. Rapid cooling of nearly 0.5°C per decade occurred on the Antarctic Peninsula. This already impacted the cryosphere in parts of the Antarctic Peninsula, including slow-down of glacier recession, surface mass gains of the peripheral glaciers and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in the northern Antarctic Peninsula islands. At the same time, temperatures in West Antarctica over the past two decades appear to have plateaued or slightly cooled… In contrast, East Antarctica has not experienced any significant temperature change since the 1950s and some areas appear to have even cooled during the most recent decades.”
 
“Cooling and an increase in snowfall in East Antarctica seems to have led to a gain in ice sheet mass and thickening of ice rises over the past 15 years… Natural climate factors such as multidecadal ocean cycles still dominate over anthropogenic climate drivers, such as CO2.”
 
I’ve said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating: everything the Left has predicted regarding climate change (not to mention other things) has not come to fruition. They said that ice sheets were thinning, ice bergs were melting, that polar bears would die off and that many parts of the planet would be underwater in as little as a few years or decades. All of it a lie and, as tends to be the case, the opposite has shown to be true, at least in many parts.
 
What that last paper lets us remember is that the planet is big enough for something to happen climate-wise in one place and something else happen elsewhere. The paper noted warming from the 1950s to the 1990s in West Antarctica, with cooling from that point to today, but East Antarctica has shown no noticeable change in temperature in that same time span. West Antarctica was experiencing some level of ice thinning, but East Antarctica has only seen thickening of ice. West Antarctica saw some recession of ice glaciers while East Antarctica saw more of them.
 
This point I'm trying to convey is that, just because it’s particularly hot or cold in one place, that doesn’t signify man-made climate change in the least. Some time ago, lunatic AOC tweeted that it was particularly hot one day in Washington D.C., despite it being winter and tried to tie that to climate change. That argument is ridiculous for more reasons than the one I have been explaining so far. Just because it was particularly hot one day in D.C. during winter that doesn’t mean climate change is to blame or that it’s a sign of the end-times.
 
It’s been fairly cold down here in Alabama and I see no sign of “man-made climate change” threatening our lives.
 
Regardless, returning to the papers, as far as No Trick Zone themselves go, they pointed out that the papers (they showed more than the ones I talked about, because I don’t want this article to be exceedingly long) “support these four main skeptical positions… which question the climate alarm popularized by today’s headlines”:
 
Position #1: “Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.”
 
Position #2: “The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities… experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.”
 
Position #3: “The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.”
 
Position #4: “Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e. a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).”
 
In short, climate science is not utterly dominated by science fiction and “scientists” who seek to either personally profit or advance an agenda (or both) that does not align with scientific truth whatsoever. There is no “consensus” regarding the fallacy of the climate cult’s talking points and deceptions. Anyone claiming otherwise is an utter liar or someone who stands to gain from advocating the unscientific position of climate change (often both).
 
I’ve said this plenty of times before, but the Left truly is filled with liars.
 
Proverbs 13:5
“The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.