While this may not be very surprising, but still disappointing to see, socialism is being viewed more and more favorably by some people, and the kind of college major one goes into tends to have some sort of impact on it, according to a recent survey from College Pulse.
 
The survey of over 10,000 college students, so a massive sample size, asked students a series of questions relating to socialism and their views on it. All in all, they found that 39% of college students have a favorable view of socialism, 39% have an unfavorable view and 18% are not sure. With these couple of numbers alone, I can say an awful lot. But I will simply say that that is both considerably less than what I expected (referring to the number of students who hold a favorable view) but also far too high for my liking.
 
But what kind of major a student chooses will seemingly have some impact as to what view they hold on socialism. According to the poll, 78% of philosophy majors have a favorable view of socialism (not very surprising at all, considering Marx was a philosopher more than an economist). That number is followed by 64% of Anthropology majors who view socialism favorably, 58% of English majors, 58% of International Relations majors, 57% of Sociology majors and 57% of Music majors.
 
However, there are four majors listed in the survey who have a more unfavorable view of socialism, and they are majors that maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to find here: Law/Criminology, who hold a 43% unfavorable view on socialism (compared to only 28% who favor it) and 29% who are unsure; Economics, with 61% unfavorable view of socialism; Finance, with 63% unfavorable view of socialism and Accounting, with 61% unfavorable view of socialism (and 20% are unsure).
 
This really shouldn’t surprise anyone for a number of reasons. First, socialism is an economic system. Those studying economics ought to have a much better understanding of socialism in comparison to capitalism than those who are not studying economics. Second, those who study economics understand that socialism is an economic system. Before you say that that is the same as my first point, allow me to elaborate. What I mean by that is in reference to an article I wrote about a month ago in late June about how even those who say they are socialist also favor free market economics, signifying that those people don’t view socialism as an economic system but as a government system where the government takes care of people that need help.
 
Obviously, for those who understand socialism, it’s not at all about that. Socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production, so everything that is made and sold goes through them and they benefit from it. A system where the government owns every industry and regulates things like prices and how much an employee makes in a government-owned industry.
 
For those who do not view socialism as an economic system, such as those who do not study economics or finance, they view socialism as government being good to people who need help and thus have to be funded by those who are already well-to-do anyway like the upper class and even the middle class.
 
And one can’t really blame people for holding this belief. Socialism is sold as a great system where everyone and everything is equal, where one doesn’t have more than another but doesn’t have so little that they can’t live or survive at all. And often, it’s sold as the idea that the government can afford to give everyone everything for free, including health care and insurance, phones, vehicles (eco-friendly ones, of course) and even fancy high-rise apartment buildings (that are also eco-friendly, of course) and we are not supposed to even question how it can all happen or where the government is going to get the money to do it. “The rich will pay for it” is the standard answer given, even though the rich, even by confiscating everything they have to the point where they are penniless, still can’t afford to pay for even Medicare-for-All, let alone every other socialist wish-list item.
 
Those who think in terms of philosophy will look at minimum wage and think “people should be paid more than this” even though they are looking at the MINIMUM of people’s wages, not the average. They will look at someone like Donald Trump (before he was President) and think “no one should be able to live like that without government assistance, so they must have stolen from someone else!” (That is literally the belief of many people who support socialism, that someone is rich only because they stole from other people, not because they worked towards becoming rich).
 
I mean, take a look at one student that College Pulse quoted: “Capitalism is a failure of a system. If you weren’t born rich, you [aren’t] gonna be rich, so we should be focusing on helping our neighbors,” adding that those who defend capitalism defend “a system designed to keep them poor and exhausted.”
 
I don’t know what that kid’s major is, but I can almost guarantee it’s not Economics. What he says is adamantly untrue. Capitalism is the greatest economic system out there (not without its flaws, of course, but far better than what socialism does). People can, in contrast to what the kid was saying, become rich even if they weren’t born rich. Look at people like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs and virtually every single person that has had a high-level position of pretty much any company. Virtually none of them were born rich. Gates, Jobs and other entrepreneurs began their businesses from their parents’ garage. Others began their businesses in their kitchens. Others rose up the corporate ladder to reach high positions in companies and make multiple hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year.
 
Just look at someone like Intel’s current CEO, Robert Swan. According to Business Insider, he makes over $4.6 million a year in salary and can earn more than $28 million in stocks. That’s more than most of us will make throughout our lifetimes, isn’t it? So being the CEO of a massive company will make you a lot of money (go figure) almost regardless of your background.
 
So to say that if you aren’t born rich you will not be rich in the future is a nonsensical and untrue statement. And as far as the comment about capitalism being a system “designed to keep them poor and exhausted”, it absolutely does not do that. Capitalism is designed to help people who have the ambition, drive and work skills and ethics to amass wealth to actually do so without a pesky government stealing from them. It’s getting harder and harder in America to do so only because of increasingly more socialistic policies being put into place (minimum wage, for example).
 
In a pure capitalistic system, people’s financial fates are largely in their hands and not in the hands of others. In a pure communist system, there is no such thing as private ownership of anything (and it’s a system that literally cannot work for any amount of time, as Lenin saw when his new Soviet Union was collapsing hard with that system, so he had to allow for some private ownership of land).
 
Those who study economics tend to understand how capitalism works (and will not say stupid things like what the aforementioned student said) and will understand how socialism works, which is why most tend to not hold socialism in a positive light. They understand that the hardships that the Soviet citizens had to endure, and what the Venezuelan citizens currently have to endure, are not because of anything apart from their own, heavily-flawed systems of economics that only serve to destroy wealth, not create it.
 
And while there are those who will say: “No! The U.S. is the reason Venezuela is like it is now,” All I have to say is: if America can do something like that to Venezuela, why couldn’t it do it to non-socialist countries? If America had this sort of power to affect other countries, why have we only seen socialist/communist countries fail? And if it has this sort of power, how did it get such power in the first place? How is our economy or our government or military as powerful as it is when we’ve only employed capitalism, a system that is “clearly flawed”, a “failure of a system” and “designed” to keep people poor?
 
These are the types of questions that, when asked to these people, will get you punched in the face because they have no good answer to it and they will sometimes (not always) resort to violence because you’ve exposed the irrationality of their arguments.
 
But fair questions they most certainly are and not questions that will likely ever be answered in a truthful and non-b.s. manner. Because the truth is that a system of economics designed to destroy wealth is not going to work. A country whose government taxes people more and more money, takes away their freedoms and rights, takes away their private property and funds itself through a pie that is slowly but surely diminishing is going to collapse at one point or another. It’s the reason Margaret Thatcher once said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
 
Those who study economics, finance, accounting, etc. (and history should also be on that list) will have a good understanding of what socialism actually is. Those who do not study it are more likely to fall for the bullcrap being spread around the media and college campuses.
 
It really is a shame that so many philosophy majors favor socialism, considering its once great ties to theology. Theology requires a very deep understanding of philosophy and logic (and considering philosophy literally means “love of knowledge”, that makes it even more disappointing because these students have no real knowledge of what they are talking about).
 
Still, I’m glad to see that there is at least SOME logic still applied in colleges around the country, even if those who study the major that most ought to be studying logic fail miserably at it.
 
Proverbs 2:2-5
“Making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding; yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge 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. 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.

It’s one thing to ask people in the United States if they think illegal immigrants ought to be deported or allowed to stay here, but it’s an entirely different thing to ask people in Mexico if they think illegal immigrants from Central America making their way to the U.S. but end up settling in Mexico (either permanently or until they are allowed to enter the U.S.) should be deported or allowed to stay in Mexico. And as a recent Washington Post poll finds, a vast majority want these people out of Mexico eventually.
 
The Washington Post/Reforma poll asked people: “What should Mexico do with the migrants from Central America that cross through the country trying to reach the United States? Give them residency in Mexico, give them temporary residency while the United States decides if it will accept them or not, or deport them to their countries of origin?”
 
Before I tell you what the numbers show, let me point something out about the question. Notice how they don’t mention in what fashion these illegals enter the country? Often times, people from Central America hoping to enter the United States enter not just our country illegally, but the countries that are on the way was well, such as Mexico. Even by Mexican standards, these people are undocumented and are not there legally, but the WaPo doesn’t want to paint them as a people that ought not be there. These aren’t “illegal immigrants” just “migrants” in their minds. That attempts to erase the legal aspects of the entire endeavor and make it about “poor people hoping for a better life” rather than people breaking the laws of a nation to illegally enter and remain in a country they will economically take advantage of.
 
But in any case, let’s get down to the actual numbers of the poll. According to the poll, only 7% said that Mexico should give these illegals residency in their country. 33% said they would be fine giving them temporary residence in Mexico and an incredible 55% said they wanted these illegals deported out of the country.
 
So 55% of Mexicans want illegals deported ASAP and 33% want them gone eventually, making that 88% of Mexicans that want these illegals gone at one point or another. Keep in mind, this is a sample size of 1200 respondents, so not a small size by any means.
 
Furthermore, the poll asked: “With which of these phrases do you agree the most? The migrants strengthen our country with their work and skills or the migrants are a burden on our country because they take jobs and receive benefits that should belong to Mexicans.” 20% of respondents agreed with the first statement, about migrants (illegals) strengthening the country through their work and skills (don’t make me laugh) while 64% agreed with the second statement about migrants (illegals) being a burden.
 
So 88% of Mexicans want these illegals gone sooner or later and 64% of Mexicans think these illegal immigrants are a burden to Mexico. I distinctly remember asking this when Mexicans protested against illegals back in November of last year, but I might as well repeat myself: is the media going to call Mexicans racist now?
 
Considering they did not say a darn thing about the Mexicans saying the caravans were an invasion and agreeing with Trump, I highly doubt they will say much of anything about this.
 
The Post themselves had to admit their disappointment in the findings of their survey: “Those findings defy the perception that Mexico – a country that has sent millions of its own migrants to the United States, sending billions of dollars in remittances – is sympathetic to the surge of Central Americans. Instead, the data suggests Mexicans have turned against the migrants transiting through their own country, expressing antipathy that would be familiar to many supporters of President Trump north of the border.”
 
I would like to say something along the lines of “well, Mexicans don’t want invaders going into their country. What a shocker,” but polls going as far back as even just last year show us a shift between then and now. According to a Pew Research Center poll from early 2018, 57% of Mexicans said that immigrants made their country stronger, with 37% saying immigrants were a burden. That’s a 27-point jump for those who say immigrants are a burden and a 37-point drop in those who say immigrants strengthened their country.
 
I don’t honestly know what led these Mexicans to have such a major change in mind about illegals in the span of a single year, but it might be in part to changing asylum rules in the U.S. (though that’s very recent and the survey was conducted July 9-14, so there’s a bit of an overlap) that force more illegals to remain in Mexico for longer periods of time.
 
What’s more, a poll from last month by Mexican newspaper “El Universal” said that since October of last year, more Mexicans began to support stricter immigration enforcement to keep illegals from entering the country. 49% of Mexicans said tougher immigration was necessary back in October. That number now sits at 61%.
 
So more and more Mexicans are beginning to get tired of the illegal immigrants that enter their country, as well they should. Granted, many of them probably would like for those illegals to go into the U.S., just as long as they aren’t in Mexico, but still. They ought to understand how much of a burden illegal immigration can be on a country, and I think they are beginning to understand this with the major influx of illegal immigrants flooding their country to try and get to ours.
 
Still, this, alongside my November article discussing the protests and my multiple articles surrounding the topic, ought to be proof enough that illegal immigration and the desire to manage and impede illegal immigration is not a matter of race, but of rule of law and maintaining our country.
 
Tackling illegal immigration is not a “white supremacist” endeavor, otherwise they would have to call the vast majority of Mexicans “white supremacists” which is utterly ludicrous. As I’ve said time and time again, the desire to build a wall and mitigate immigration is not an effort to “make America white again”. I’m not white but I still support Trump, the Wall and the idea of maintaining the American culture, which is at risk from both illegal immigrants (and legal immigrants that refuse to assimilate into the American culture) and the bigoted Left who hates this country to their very bones.
 
And while I’m certain there will be those on the Left who will insist you don’t have to be white to be a “white supremacist” (which should be antithetical to the Jesse Jackson belief that minorities can’t be racist, but they’ll contradict themselves if they feel it benefits them) and will in turn attempt to call me a “white supremacist” for insisting that we protect the country from foreign invaders who wish to turn this country into something it isn’t, I will only laugh at the miserable morons that make such assertions - much like I laugh at those who insist Trump colluded with Russia and will call me Russian names if I defend him (one literally called me Vlad for saying that Mueller did not find collusion, which is a factual statement).
 
The reason they make these assertions is because they completely ignore logic. Of course someone who defends this country isn’t a white supremacist. But that doesn’t matter because the Left has demonized this country so much and insists it’s as bad as it is because it’s so white that defending it is tantamount to Hitlerian rhetoric. It’s nonsense, but these people couldn’t care less. They care about emotions and their emotions don’t let them think logically.
 
They see things like men get paid more than women, get pissed, and presume misogyny without caring about the facts presented to them. And once said facts are presented, they only get more pissed and begin to berate you and call you a sexist yourself.
 
They see things like an ICE facility and compare it to a concentration camp because a moron like AOC made that comparison, and as a result, one of them gets pissed off enough to try and attack it using Molotov cocktails and gets killed as a result, thinking he was being a hero and “fighting Nazis” when all he was doing is commit a terrorist attack. These people don’t think for themselves, and are led by others who don’t think for themselves either and will use emotion as a driving force for their actions.
 
Mass migration, be it legal or illegal, changes a country’s entire culture. I fully believe Europe will become a Muslim continent because of their insistence on bringing in Syrian “refugees”. In turn, those “refugees” demand European countries change their system to accommodate them. And if America continues bringing in more and more immigrants, especially in mass migration attempts, the culture of this country will also be fundamentally changed forever.
 
That is not a racist statement to make, but a logical one. Latin America has a vastly different culture from our own. Even within Latin American countries, there are different cultures. I can tell you for sure that the culture of Mexico and the culture of Argentina are very different from each other. Granted, as a kid, it was easier for me to adjust to a new culture, but the adjustment still needed to be made.
 
If Mexicans are to retain their culture, they have to give the boot to those illegal immigrants and have the legal ones assimilate to their culture. Similarly, we must do the same.
 
But as it stands, I am glad to see such an incredible shift in sentiment towards illegals from Mexicans themselves. The WaPo mentions a perception of how Mexico sympathizes with illegals because many Mexicans illegally immigrate into the U.S. and have done so historically, but it seems things are changing, and maybe for the better.
 
We just need to follow suit with Mexico (not something I ever expected to say or write) and insist we enforce the immigration laws we already have in place; insist that we not allow for states and cities to aid and abet criminals by making themselves “sanctuaries” for the law-breakers and ultimately deport as many illegals as we possibly can (and for those who will mock Trump for not deporting as many illegals as Obama did, let me remind you that Obama didn’t have over half of Washington D.C. keeping him from performing those duties of his office).
 
Exodus 12:49
“There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
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.

This Saturday marks a very important anniversary for our country: the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. 50 years ago, the United States embarked on a historical adventure to reach and set foot on the moon before the communist Soviets, who had managed to reach outer space before us on April 12th, 1961. Despite that, the Apollo 11 Eagle lunar module set an even bigger milestone, allowing for Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins to be the first people to reach the moon, Neil being the first to set foot on it, Buzz being the 2nd and Collins staying behind to tend to the ship.
 
And while the entire expedition was iconic, virtually everyone who knows the minimal amount on this subject knows of the legendary words: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” However, other words could’ve also become rather iconic with those.
 
Buzz Aldrin, after the module had landed on the moon, sent the following message back to ground control: “I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in, wherever and whomever he may be, to contemplate for a moment the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his own individual way.”
 
That message was sent to ground control, but NASA went on to censor this: “I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit. Apart from me you can do nothing,” quoting from the Gospel of John, in the 5th verse of the 15th chapter. Aldrin would then open “two small packages containing consecrated bread and wine from his church in Texas,” according to The Daily Wire. Aldrin would later recall: “In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine curled slowly and gracefully up the side of the cup.”
 
One of the first things to have been done on the moon, apart from setting foot on it and walking on it and planting the American flag on it, was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with the bread signifying the body of Christ and the wine signifying the blood of Christ, both of which were given up for our sins.
 
Do you have any idea just how important and magnificent it would’ve been to see and hear Buzz Aldrin lead that Sacrament ON THE MOON?! And yet, that historic moment was taken away from us, indeed from mankind, because of militant Leftist atheists.
 
You see, NASA had been fighting a legal battle against a woman named Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a militant atheist who was widely considered “the most hated woman in America” (wonder why) who, seven months earlier, had sued NASA for allowing Apollo 8 astronauts to read from the Book of Genesis on Christmas Eve during a broadcast sent from lunar orbit.
 
So because a militant Leftist atheist was annoyed that anyone would enjoy hearing the Book of Genesis THE DAY BEFORE WE CELEBRATE THE DAY OUR LORD WAS BORN, NASA eventually kowtowed to the woman’s will and censored the Lord’s Supper broadcast that Aldrin had given, robbing generations of a deeply important and incredible religious moment on the surface of the closet thing we have come to the heavens while alive.
 
Due to the misery of some people who can’t stand to see others enjoy the sincere joy and happiness of faith in Christ, the very people who were brave enough to send mankind to the moon wasn’t brave enough to stand up to a miserable, hateful woman who refused to allow others to think differently from her.
 
I get annoyed and agitated when these hateful bigots try to bully government officials into getting rid of the 10 Commandments on the grounds of government buildings or when they try to get rid of Christian symbols in places like cemeteries, etc., but this honestly tops all of these things. What I would’ve done to hear Buzz Aldrin reading from the Gospel of John and perform the Lord’s Supper WHILE ON THE MOON! To have heard and seen it, even if just on a YouTube video half a century later, would’ve been ecstatic. Just thinking about it gives me goosebumps.
 
And yet, because some miserable people hate the Lord and will bully others into also hating the Lord, we were robbed of that glorious moment. These people’s hatred knows no bound, does it?
 
Do you want to know what is rather ironic? The verse immediately following the one Aldrin quoted says the following: “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers. Such branches are gathered up, thrown into the fire, and burned.”
 
It’s extremely easy to see the contrast between those who remain in Christ, such as Buzz Aldrin, and those who do not remain in Christ. Those who remain in Christ, as Buzz Aldrin does, bears much fruit. He is widely famous for being one of the biggest American heroes alive and is pretty much universally loved. Those who do not remain in Christ, such as Madalyn Murray O’Hair, do not bear any fruit and are like the branches that are thrown away and wither up. As it stands, Buzz Aldrin, if he still remains in Christ today, will bear far more fruit once he joins our Lord in Heaven. But as far as Madalyn goes, she passed away (murdered, tragically) in 1995, having led the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit which challenged mandatory prayer and Bible reading in Baltimore public schools in 1963, which led the way for getting God out of the classrooms.
 
I don’t know if the Lord ever reached her heart at any point late in her life, but I have my doubts that He did. And because she did not remain in Christ as a result of the Lord not reaching her, it’s almost certain that she is now suffering eternal damnation in Hell (and for those who will call me “hateful” or “judgmental” for saying that she is likely in Hell right now, do me a favor and pick up the Bible. What does it say about those who are unbelievers? What happens to them? I’ll give you a hint: they don’t go to Heaven).
 
And while it is tragic that she was murdered (by a former employee of the organization she founded), what is even more tragic is that, while she had her entire life to find the Truth of Christ that is made patently obvious by the very existence of the creation itself, she spent her life challenging said Truth and suffered both the first and second death as a result (in all likelihood). As Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, in chapter 1 verse 20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.”
 
Man really has no excuse for not knowing the Truth of God and of the Gospel. The very world around us is the proof of a Creator. I always say we were not created by chance because chance has no intrinsic power to do anything. Chance is simply a mathematical calculation of a probable outcome or effect of a cause. It has no power to affect the effect because it is not a cause in itself. For someone to say and insist that the universe was created by chance is to say a nonsense statement because chance can’t DO anything.
 
The Truth of the Lord is made patently obvious to all, and so Man has no excuse. No one can tell the Lord, upon receiving judgment, that they simply did not know Him or of Him because everything around them points directly to Him as the Creator. For this reason, Madalyn had no excuse not to know about the Lord, especially in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles that acknowledges the Truth of God. She challenged the notion of an existing God and tried to bully others into rejecting Him as well, but I have no doubt that she knows of Him now. Unfortunate that it is too late for her.
 
But returning to the religious moment that was taken away from us by a hateful bigot and a spineless NASA, while it is a tragedy that Buzz’s words were never heard by those paying attention to the broadcast (apart from ground control) and while his actions were never seen or talked about much, we all know that God was there to witness it, and I know He was smiling at the event.
 
Just knowing of this in the first place makes me angry that NASA allowed itself to be bullied as they were, but happy that Aldrin did what he did where he did it anyway. I’m happy that the moon got a little taste of the Word of God.
 
John 15:5
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.”
 
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.

Something that often bothers me is the fact that the MSM will sometimes have an anti-Trump, or generally an anti-America pastor who takes the Word of God and says it teaches things it outright does not teach. One example of this is whenever the issue of immigration is brought up and an anti-Trump pastor will try and shame the President and anyone who agrees with him for trying to “separate families at the border” or simply for not letting these people break our laws (not that they ever phrase it that way).
 
And it always leaves me rather perplexed that anyone who claims to have faith in the Lord and who claims to be a practicing Christian, even a pastor of a church, would ever go with whatever the Left stands for, considering what they stand for is often anti-Christian.
 
I believe the answer here is that said people are not truly Christian. They take advantage of the Word of God, the ultimate authority over anything, and interpret it to say what it very much does not say.
 
Returning to the topic of immigration, Leftist preachers are all too happy to jump at the verses where the Lord explicitly tells the Jewish people to allow for strangers to sojourn in their land, to not do them any wrong, to love them as yourself because the Jewish people were themselves strangers in the land of Egypt, but will completely ignore the fact that God also demands sojourners to obey the laws of the land of Israel and ought to be punished for breaking it, as would any Jew be punished for doing the same.
 
It’s one thing to welcome immigrants into our country, it’s another to be taken advantage of by people who break the law and demand we make changes to our system to accommodate them. One is fair and righteous and the other is the exact opposite.
 
So when the Democrat Party hires anti-Trump pastors and preachers who spew this sort of nonsense about accepting and welcoming such law-breakers and leeches in an effort to draw the evangelical vote away from Trump, I can’t help but laugh. The Party of Satan is trying to garner evangelical votes?
 
Actually, that makes an awful lot of sense. Satan loves it when Christians stray from the path of God, begin challenging Him and questioning Him, and ultimately renounce Him. Why would the Democrats, who espouse outright Satanic beliefs of infanticide and utter slavery over people, be any different?
 
I recently read an article from Michael Wear, a man who directed religious outreach for the Obama campaign in 2012, who warned 2020 Democrat candidates not to assume their extreme positions on abortion were mainstream in any way, shape, manner or form. That even Democrat voters aren’t quite that extreme about that stuff and if they continue to embrace their positions, they give good reason for Trump to call them out on their desire to execute babies (and he is right to do so, since that is exactly what they are doing).
 
But not a single one of them is willing to back off on that issue and maybe allow for some amount of restriction (something the vast majority of Americans want). The reason for this is multifaceted. First, the Leftist media, Hollywood and Twitter extremists will castigate them and rip them to shreds for letting off the gas on this issue. If they appear to be in any way compromising, they essentially become “owners of women’s bodies”. And while the far-Left is not the majority, by far, they are very loud and their megaphones are turned up even louder by social media, who are also extremists in their own right.
 
Secondly and finally, they are children of Satan, not of God. They have spent the better part of the last century trying to diminish the impact of Christianity and the Lord. Everything from banning God in the classroom to commercializing Christmas (and policing speech by forcing a switch to “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”) to removing God from the 2012 DNC platform and most recently, getting rid of “so help me God” from U.S. House Committee oaths earlier in the year has been a rather open attack and war against God and Christianity in America.
 
The 6th Commandment says “You shall not murder”. When a human fetus is brutally separated from his or her mother and the life that was growing inside that womb is eliminated, what other thing can we possibly call that apart from murder? And yet, this is the position the Left holds: kill the babies that are unwanted by the mother, regardless of anything else. A father wishes to save his child? Doesn’t matter if the mother doesn’t want the child. A mentally slow woman wishes to have a child? Doesn’t matter if the judicial system doesn’t think she is fit for motherhood and the most reasonable and logical course of action would be abortion.
 
Not one 2020 Democrat knows God. Even the gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana doesn’t know Him despite what he might say. All of them defy the Lord openly, hate Him vehemently, and seek to force that way of thinking on everyone else. The only Christian that would be willing to vote for them is a Christian that is absolutely not paying attention to the world around them at all or someone who isn’t a Christian at all, just says he is outwardly.
 
That’s not to say they can’t be changed by the Lord should He choose to. I used to be rather socially liberal about some things (particularly homosexuality and gay marriage) and would still call myself a Christian at the time. But by no means was I actually a good or knowledgeable Christian. Jesus was still my Lord and Savior at the time (still is, don’t misunderstand) and the Holy Spirit fully entered my heart, but my Christianity was in its infancy. I did not, at the time, understand why God forbade this or that, just knew that He did and wondered why. But I ultimately understood why He forbids these things: they are sinful and the Lord can’t stand even the sight of sin.
 
I used to think Man was naturally good until I understood that he absolutely is not. So Christianity is most certainly a journey not only of the soul, but of the mind. I say this because there may be some people out there who might take offense at being told they were not Christian who might disagree with SOME of the things I am saying. But the truth is that true Christians will abhor abortion, hate law-breakers and understand that while Trump isn’t perfect (obviously, since Jesus is the only One who is perfect), he is far closer to someone like King David (sins and all), who loved the Lord, than someone like Stalin, who hated the God he claimed not to believe in.
 
When looking at the Democrat field, and most Democrats in general, even the ones not running for President, I see the type of Stalinist bigots who would love nothing more than to send people like us to the gulags. No true Christian would support anything the Democrats have been supporting recently. Which is why I hang my head in shame whenever I read that some churches gave illegals sanctuary prior to ICE raids or that some Christians hate the fact that a Virginia pastor actually had the audacity to pray for the President. Such people are not Christians, in reality.
 
They may call themselves that and show outward expressions of faith, but the Lord is not in their hearts.
 
Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”
 
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.

In many polls for quite a few months, favorability for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, but particularly for AOC, has not really been there, despite how often they are both talked about.
 
Despite the Democrats’ incessant defense of the many horrendous remarks these two make, a notably few amount of people seem to like these two at all (can’t imagine why). And during the weekend, Axios received a Democrat Party internal poll that shows these things to be true.
 
Axios reported: “Ocasio-Cortez was recognized by 74% of (swing) voters in the poll; 22% had a favorable view. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota – another member of The Squad – was recognized by 53% of the voters; 9% (not a typo) had a favorable view.”
 
So while plenty of people know and can recognize the name of these two Leftist darlings, VERY few people actually like them. Nearly three-quarters of voters could recognize who Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is, but less than 25% of them actually held a favorable view. Perhaps more embarrassing is Omar’s numbers, who despite being recognized by more than half of voters, less than 10% view her favorably.
 
And these kinds of numbers are not a one-off thing, or from some random poll. These numbers are consistent with other polls and come from the Democrats themselves!
 
A poll back in June asked voters inside AOC’s district what they thought of her and here is what they found: “They don’t like her. She has a more than 2:1 ratio of unfavorable (50.88%) to favorable (21.37%) in public opinion. They don’t trust her. Only 10.75% thought she had their best interests in mind in quashing the Amazon deal – 32.60% said she didn’t. They don’t want her. 33.44% are ready to vote against her, and only 13.30% would vote for her.”
 
A Quinnipiac poll from March found that “23% of Americans had a favorable view of the member of Congress (AOC), while 36% had an unfavorable view – a -13 overall approval rating,” according to Vox.
 
A top Democrat running for Congress in 2020 told Axios: “If all voters hear about is AOC, it could put the [House] majority at risk. [S]he’s getting all the news and defining everyone else’s races. Socialism is toxic to these voters.”
 
Those words are not to be taken lightly from this anonymous Democrat running for congressional office (it’s unclear if he or she is an incumbent or challenger). He or she is right about AOC defining everyone else’s races, but that largely is because the vast majority of the Democrat Party is falling in line with people like her. They are beginning to embrace socialism far more openly, seeing the results it’s gotten people like Bernie Sanders and AOC herself (as well as others). There isn’t a single Democrat running for the presidency that hasn’t disavowed socialism or socialistic policies. I keep going back to when every single Democrat raised their hand when asked which one of them would give illegal immigrants free healthcare.
 
Just about whatever position AOC takes, the Democrat Party also takes, for the most part. And while there are those within the Party who disagree sometimes, namely Nancy Pelosi mocking the Green New Deal as “the Green Dream or whatever”, there are plenty of people who see her as the future (for some reason), including former DNC chair Keith Ellison, who outright said that she was the future of the Democrat Party.
 
However, as with AOC’s and Omar’s numbers, socialism isn’t viewed all that favorably. According to Axios: “Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%... capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable.”
 
It’s precisely because of these reasons that I don’t believe any Democrat running for POTUS has any real chance against Trump. Say what you will about the President (calling him racist certainly doesn’t work anymore and I seriously doubt his tweets regarding Omar’s ingratitude towards America, whether one thinks are racist or not (they aren’t), are going to do anything to hurt him come election time), but he at least can run on results.
 
All Democrats can run on is hating Trump and lying about him. And while that may work with their mindless base (seriously, I had a Twitter debate with someone who legitimately thinks the Mueller report showed collusion, when it adamantly stated there wasn’t and she called me a liar as a result, so some of these people are wacky themselves), that’s not going to work for the vast majority of the American voting bloc.
 
That low favorability for socialism isn’t anything new. Back in March, an NBC News/WSJ poll said that only 25% of Americans would approve of a socialist candidate for President, and in that same poll, only 18% approved of socialism in general, the same number as today (though I would personally hope it gets even lower still as time goes on). In that poll, 50% disapproved of socialism, so that’s a massive, 19-point jump from that poll back in March to this internal Democrat poll.
 
50% viewed capitalism favorably and only 19% unfavorably in that poll, so there’s a bit of a shift in the new poll, with capitalism’s favorability gaining 6 points but its unfavourability also rising significantly, but that might be due to some sampling size differences and other variables.
 
If these trends continue, and if Democrat candidates continue to out-Leftist each other, more and more people will think negatively of them (and these polls are why I don’t buy into the idea that any of these Democrats could beat Trump. I mean, I even saw a poll that said US Women’s Soccer star Megan Rapinoe could beat Trump! Now you know they are definitely crazy) and it will ultimately come bite them in the behind once the 2020 presidential election is here.
 
Not only that, but the House is, in all likelihood, also to go to Republicans if this keeps up. Like the anonymous Democrat candidate said, people like AOC are defining other Democrats’ campaigns. Even if a candidate runs on not being out of his or her mind, AOC’s shadow is going to be a threat to their campaign. Any agreement to anything AOC does will likely be seen as a sort of endorsement of the actions. Any defense of her anti-Semitic, racist or outright insulting and belittling comments regarding illegal immigrant detention centers being in any way, shape or form akin to concentration camps will be seen as a total endorsement of that brand of lunacy.
 
That’s not to say the entire election is in the bag. We don’t want to get complacent here. That’s what Hillary did, believing the election was over before it started, and look at where she is now: doing book tours and signings that barely get covered and hardly anyone shows up. Victory should never be an assumption, but neither should defeat. With everything that I am seeing currently: an America being made great again, Leftists going out of their way to bash it for being America and for being founded in the first place (going so far as to even say this country was founded on slavery, when it was literally founded on liberty, but the Founding Fathers thought slavery was on its way out the door, so they didn’t think they would need to do much apart from keeping ships from importing slaves into the country), and Leftists embracing full-blown socialism and government-takeover of virtually everything they can get their hands on, I really can’t see the Left winning against Trump.
 
These numbers show devastating results to Democrats. And again, this is their own internal polling, so you know there is bound to be some oversampling of Democrats. But despite that possible oversampling (I won’t go so far as to actually accuse them of that without any actual evidence, but that is a common practice for these people, so I doubt they were perfectly objective in their sampling), these numbers show AOC is heavily disliked, as well as Ilhan Omar (quite possibly, the rest of “The Squad”, Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) show at least somewhat similar numbers, but they don’t tend to be quite as frequently talked about) and that socialism is overall viewed as “toxic” to voters, in the words of the anonymous Democrat candidate.
 
I can only hope and pray that these numbers will continue to show up like this, or get even lower, as time goes on.
 
Deuteronomy 28:7
“’The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.’”
 
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.
 

In a world where nothing is sacred and a very privileged group of people search high and low for things that will offend them, one Washington Post columnist named Dan Hassler-Forest will find one of Disney’s beloved classics, “The Lion King”, to be nothing more than fascistic propaganda meant to brainwash your children into believing people are different and there are people who are better than you.
 
Seriously, does the Left ever take a break in looking for things to be offended by? There just about isn’t anything in this world that they don’t find some sort of offense to. Be it the flag, people’s names, people’s actions, or even a Disney movie from 1994 about THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.
 
Hassler-Forest likely has seen that Disney, who are likely running out of original ideas, is soon going to release a live-action remake of the beloved classic “The Lion King”, starring Donald Glover and Beyonce as Simba and Nala respectively and finds the entire concept of a “lion king” to be akin to fascistic rule.
 
The title of his piece is: “’The Lion King’ is a fascistic story. No remake can change that.” So right off the bat this guy sounds super triggered (offended/annoyed, for the non-Millennials out there). His subhead reads: “No matter how you look at it, this is a film that introduces us to a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.”
 
And the actual body of the article isn’t much better. He writes: “… But as nostalgic as ‘Circle of Life’ may make us feel, this bombastic scene is also a painful reminder of the film’s ideological agenda: It introduces us to a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.”
 
“As we watch the herbivores congregate to bow down before their newborn ruler, ‘The Lion King’ offers us a seductive worldview in which absolute power goes unquestioned, and where the weak and the vulnerable are fundamentally inferior. In other words: ‘The Lion King’ offers us fascist ideology writ large, and there seems to be no way out for the forthcoming remake.”
 
Gee, I wonder why a movie about the animal kingdom depicts a “society” where the strong rule and the weak die. Hmmm.
 
Later down the article, Hassler-Forest attacks Disney as being “obsessed” with patriarchal monarchies and compares Pride Rock to Trump Tower, what he views as a symbol of power that looks down on “society’s weaker groups”.
 
But beyond the “class warfare” that he believes is seen throughout the movie, the out-of-his-mind Leftist also has to bring in racism into the mix, because we cannot go a single day without being reminded with a hammer that racism exists and white people are bad (and virtually no one on the Left will recognize the irony of such a statement).
 
“With the lions standing in for the ruling class and the ‘good’ herbivores embodying society’s decent, law-abiding citizens, the hyenas transparently represent the black, brown, and disabled bodies that are forcefully excluded from this fascist society. Noticeably marked by their ethnically coded ‘street’ accents, the hyenas blatantly symbolize racist and anti-Semitic stereotypes of ‘verminous’ groups that form an inherent threat to society.”
 
Yes, the hyenas who are very clearly mentally unstable and side with the only actual representation of a fascist ruler in the entire movie, Scar, are the victims in all of this.
 
I wonder what this guy thinks of mental asylums, then. Does that represent a fascistic rule in any country that has them (aka all of them)?
 
But beyond that, I wonder what he would think of, oh, I don’t know, THE ACTUAL ANIMAL KINGDOM WHERE THE STRONG SURVIVE AND THE WEAK DIE!
 
The biggest irony, in my opinion, regarding this garbage and unnecessary hit-piece on the movie is that they try and paint Mufasa, an honestly benevolent ruler who seeks balance and equality in his kingdom and who obviously cares about his subjects, as the bad guy just because he is a ruler in the first place.
 
Does he not know that in reality, lions hunt every single day? And that those herbivores are literally a lion’s meal every day? Does he not know that lions are carnivores, as in they will eat meat? And it’s not like they can just go to their local Chick-fil-a. They have to hunt those other animals themselves, so to say Mufasa is in any way a bad guy is asinine, to say the least.
 
Look, I’m not a big fan of Disney, certainly not anymore. Considering their often Left-wing tendencies and their attempt to follow the woke crowd by putting LGBT characters in their recent film, I’m not going to be their biggest defender. But when it comes to utterly idiotic arguments like the ones being made by this MSM writer, what else can I do?
 
This just goes to show how out of touch with reality these people are. Even beyond trying to defend the movie, I’m trying to defend REALITY. Because in reality, the lions are far more fierce and ruthless than Mufasa and Simba and every other lion in the pride.
 
In reality, all the herbivores that “worship” at the feet of the Lion King, be it Mufasa, Simba or Scar, are nothing more than lions’ lunch. Why? Because that’s how NATURE works. For a group of people that tend to believe in the theory of evolution over creation, they often have a problem with the concept of natural selection, wherein superior species thrive over inferior ones.
 
Lions are predators and zebras (and other animals lions eat) are prey. That indicates natural superiority. Lions have sharp teeth and nails, a powerful bite, and great speed and natural camo to hunt and kill their prey. As a result, they are physically superior to, say, zebras, who are herbivores and have no actual defense mechanism against predators apart from speed and numbers.
 
Watch any nature documentary of a lion hunting something and what you will notice each and every time is the prey being in massive numbers to ensure their own safety and will always run away from their predator. That’s not fascism; it’s nature.
 
But one big final point I wish to make is just how awful such a constant use of the word “fascist” is for the actual meaning of the word. People like Hassler-Forest have no actual idea as to what that word means if they think THE LION KING is about fascism.
 
Fascism is virtually no different from socialism and communism. Benito Mussolini simply said that fascism was a more “perfect” or “advanced” form of communism (though I don’t see how it’s in any way different, let alone more “advanced”). Just because there is a hierarchy that doesn’t automatically mean there is fascism at play.
 
There is a hierarchy in just about everything. Companies are hierarchical. Churches are hierarchical. Sports teams are hierarchical. Even friend groups are usually hierarchical, with at least one clear leader. Order is not the same thing as fascism.
 
And the constant butchering of the word to define anything someone doesn’t like utterly takes away any meaning of the word to the point it becomes passé. When someone says that something that isn’t fascistic is fascistic, I can’t help but roll my eyes at the sheer stupidity of such an argument.
 
But the saddest part may come in the actual individual. The Lion King’s live-action remake will come out some time in late July. It’s virtually no different from the original which, as I’ve said before, is a beloved classic. For someone to get themselves to write something so stupid and negative about a CHILDREN’S MOVIE THAT DEPICTS THE ANIMAL KINGDOM TO CERTAIN EXTENTS is indicative of an individual who really cannot find any sort of pleasure in life.
 
People like him, those who seek for the negative things of everything, and even go so far as to make stuff up and demonstrate outrage (be it fake or real), are people who are devoid of joy, and that’s truly sad.
 
Hassler-Forest isn’t nuanced for “pointing out fascistic tendencies” in a children’s movie that came out 25 year ago. He is sad for going to such lengths as to not find joy in a beloved children’s movie and seek to ruin the fun for everyone else by smearing it as some sort of fascistic propaganda.
 
And while I often say that everyone needs Jesus, it’s people like him that need Him a good deal. Not being able to enjoy a children’s movie and then writing an entire article on a major “news” site giving his opinion about how it’s some sort of fascistic dream so that other people might think negatively of the movie as he does is outright depressing, bordering on sociopathic.
 
I would hate to live my life devoid of joy and seeking to ruin the fun for others just because I myself am incapable of finding joy. And again, it’s people like him that really need the Lord.
 
There really is absolutely no reason to smear a CHILDREN’S MOVIE in this way, especially if the movie doesn’t deserve it. What “The Lion King” represents is a sort of anthropomorphized society in the animal kingdom where there is a lion monarch who rules his kingdom as any human would. A story of a grown lion king teaching his new son, the prince who will be king one day, how to rule his kingdom once he comes of age and becomes the head of the pride. A story where said prince witnesses his father’s demise and an evil (and actually fascistic) ruler who couldn’t care less about himself literally deprives that kingdom of life in his short rule until he is toppled by a now-grown prince, who had escaped the kingdom fearing for his own life.
 
Apart from the time that Scar, the literal bad guy of the story, rules the kingdom, you’d be hard-pressed to find any semblance of actual fascism in the story. Because there really is none, but that certainly didn’t keep this guy from attempting to find some sort of connection to it and display to the world just how much he doesn’t like fascism (though I’m willing to bet he describes himself as socialist and will not understand that there’s no difference between the two).
 
To make a long article short: no, “The Lion King” is not fascistic propaganda. It’s just a monarchy displayed using animals. No need to take the joy out of everything, woke Leftists.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
 
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.

A few days ago, NBC News ran a story covering Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), talking about how U.S. Census data from the mid 1800s (1850 and 1860 specifically) showed that Sen. McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers were slave owners.
 
The article, titled “Sen. Mitch McConnell’s great-great-grandfathers owned 14 slaves, bringing reparations issue close to home” is nothing short of an attempt to smear the guy for the fact the guy’s ancestors FOUR GENERATIONS AGO owned slaves, when plenty of people in America are either descended from slaves or slave owners.
 
“The two great-great-grandfathers, James McConnell and Richard Daley, owned a total of at least 14 slaves in Limestone County, Alabama – all but two of them female, according to the county ‘Slave Schedules’ in the 1850 and 1860 censuses,” reported the article.
 
The article also mentions the fact that Sen. McConnell is opposed to slave reparations, an issue that was recently brought up to the House and has been talked about at length by 2020 Democrat presidential candidates, all of whom support it.
 
McConnell made the case against reparations the day before the House hearing, saying: “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago, when none of us currently living are responsible, is a good idea. We’ve tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We’ve elected an African American president.”
 
Obviously, for the uber-woke Left, such words are absolutely unacceptable and he must be put to shame. And it’s not like NBC News tried to hide their intentions for reporting on his ancestors. One paragraph states: “The details about McConnell’s ancestors, discovered by NBC News through a search of ancestry and census records, came in the wake of recent hearings on reparations before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties…”
 
It’s likely the discovery of his ancestry, made by these very same people, came not simply in the wake of the hearings, but largely due to his comments regarding reparations, considering the amount of times they point out that he is against reparations.
 
Still, later down the article, they mention something experts on slavery often say: “descendants of slave owners should not be held personally responsible for the deeds of their forebears.” Despite that, NBC News says that slave experts add that “the families that descended from slave owners, like McConnell’s, are likely to have benefited from the labor of slaves that propped up farm families in earlier generations – a point made by many reparations supporters, who have said that descendants of slaves were never compensated for the economic benefit their forebears made to white families.”
 
And that “argument” seems pretty idiotic to me for one particular reason: THEY WERE SLAVE OWNERS! OF COURSE THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES BENEFITED FROM IT! That’s like saying people and their families today benefit from advanced technology. It’s just the way the world worked at the time!
 
That’s not an excuse to the immorality of the issue, but an explanation as to how and why the families of slave owners benefited from slave ownership. Of course they benefited! Do you think they owned slaves for fun? Slaves were seen as property; as assets. People benefit from assets. Slave owners benefited from the fact they owned slaves. I don’t think that’s an outrageous statement to make, but rather an entirely logical one. Slave owners benefited from the slaves who would work in their fields in a similar manner as to how companies benefit from the work their employees do.
 
That’s not outrageous, it’s adding 2 + 2 and getting 4. It’s an entirely logical outcome.
 
Again, that’s not to excuse slavery in the least, but it’s ridiculous to be outraged at slave owners BENEFITING from slavery when it’s what comes naturally FROM OWNING AN ASSET! What is outrageous is the fact that people, any kind of people, are/were subjected to be treated as nothing more than property and stripped of all their human rights. Not the fact that people benefit from something that is very obviously going to be beneficial.
 
And what exactly is Mitch McConnell supposed to do, then? Burn all his family’s money that he thinks came from ancestral slave ownership? No, I think what he is supposed to do is apologize profusely for daring to challenge the idea that people who didn’t own slaves should be made to pay people who were never slaves themselves.
 
But that is where the entire issue runs into trouble. Just who is descended from slaves and who is descended from slave owners? Do you want to know who is descended from slave owners as well? 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.
 
In an article from the Washington Free Beacon, Donald Harris, Stanford University professor of economics and father of Kamala Harris said in 2018 that his grandmother, Christina Brown, was a descendant of Hamilton Brown, the man who had an entire town in northern Jamaica named after him (Brown’s Town) and the man who is said to have owned “scores of slaves,” many of whom were brought from Africa, but there were Creole slaves as well.
 
Barack Obama himself even acknowledges that his mother’s lineage can be traced back to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, his wife Michelle has ancestors who fought for the Confederates and, in 2007, genealogists “traced Obama’s roots and discovered two slave owners in his maternal ancestry,” according to the Washington Post.
 
What’s more, when Obama ran for President in 2008, he was also opposed to reparations, believing that they would be used as an excuse “not to work on challenges of racial inequality in education, housing and the workforce,” according to the WaPo.
 
Sen. Mitch McConnell responded to the NBC News article by saying: “You know, I find myself in the same position as President Obama. We both oppose reparations, and we both are the descendants of slave owners.”
 
Which does bring to light the question as to why NBC News chose to focus on McConnell when Obama was the exact same way and when Harris also had slave-owning ancestors. Of course, that is entirely a rhetorical question. We know why they focus on McConnell, a Republican, over Obama and Harris, Democrats.
 
But it is always interesting, if sometimes infuriating, to see the double-standard the media sets up. Just looking at the Jeffrey Epstein case, the media is working overtime to cover the connections between the sick pedophile and President Trump when there hardly is anything there (and Trump kicked him out of Mar-a-lago when he got wind of what Epstein was doing there) and when Bill Clinton has far bigger of a connection to Epstein than Trump does.
 
And when it comes to the issue of slavery, despite the fact that it’s likely people are descendants of slave owners, as McConnell, Obama and Harris all are, only McConnell is focused on for his comments on reparations not aligning with the far-Left’s views on the issue (I’ve decided to start using that term every now and then, since they always label anyone on the Right, or even center, as “far-right”).
 
Now, I’m no fan of Mitch McConnell personally. I believe he holds at least some of the blame for not working with Trump to get the wall built (the Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate before 2018. Harry Reid’s nuclear option was available to be used but the excuse was “we need 9 Democrats to work with us” which was not really the case). And while it’s entirely possible and likely that the House, under snake Paul Ryan, would’ve struck down any bill to build the wall, McConnell could’ve at least tried to get the ball rolling on building the wall and not give us a pathetic excuse of “we need the Democrats who are never going to agree to do this in order to do this”. We absolutely did not need the Democrats, we just needed Republicans who are not traitorous or spineless.
 
But despite my negative views on McConnell (and his ties to China are dubious at best), I do have to at least bring forth the utter double-standard of this whole ordeal. Again, Obama and Harris both are descendants of slave owners, but no one is asking them about that connection or trying to shame them about it.
 
Still, I’m always happy to expose the utter hypocrisy of the far-Left in everything they do.
 
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 sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Despite the bogus calls of racism surrounding the addition of a citizenship question to the U.S. Census, a very solid majority of Americans support such an addition, including Latinos and African Americans, according to a recent Harvard/Harris poll.
 
The poll shows that 5 in 9 Hispanics, or 55%, support adding a citizenship question to the Census, and nearly 6 in 10 African Americans, or 59%, also say the same.
 
Overall, 67% of American voters support adding the question to the Census, with 72% of white Americans, almost 90% of Republicans, 63% of swing voters and between 64 and 69% of working class Americans making up that overall number.
 
Despite the Supreme Court foolishly voting to kick the can down the road on this issue, President Trump is reportedly looking to add the question to next year’s Census anyway, with the help of Attorney General William Barr. So it is very likely that the President will sign an executive order to add the question to the Census.
 
But of course, this is all bad news for the Left. To them, adding a citizenship question is “racist” and nothing but an effort to “make America white again” even though nothing about adding a question would really affect how “white” America is. The only REAL reason the Left is opposed to the citizenship question is because of districting.
 
U.S. Senate candidate in Kansas, Kris Kobach, explained: “Right now, congressional districts are drawn up simply based on the number of warm bodies in each district. Not only are legal aliens counted, but illegal aliens are counted too. As a result, citizens in a district with lots of illegal aliens have more voting power than citizens in districts with few illegal aliens.”
 
In other words, this completely jeopardizes our American electoral system because districts all of a sudden have more people to count and receive more voting power. Places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Antonio, etc., if they take more and more illegal aliens who people don’t know are illegal aliens, they receive more power, but it is ill-gotten and illegitimate power.
 
How else do you think California is so irretrievably blue? I often say that the biggest mistake President Reagan ever made is sign the amnesty bill late in his administration. While the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal for businesses to knowingly hire illegal immigrants (like that stopped them), it also legalized illegals who came into the country before January 1st, 1982. Even Wikipedia says that “despite the passage of the act, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States rose from 5 million in 1986 to 11.1 in 2013.”
 
Yeah, it’s not “despite” the passage of the act, but precisely BECAUSE of the passage of the act. This signified that even one of the most conservative Presidents would be willing to sign an amnesty bill. And while it may have been “promised” to Reagan that it would be the only bill of its kind, you absolutely cannot trust the Washington establishment. Paul Ryan often promised Trump that they would be building the wall eventually and they never got around to doing that, hoping to God that Democrats would take control of the House (which they did, as we know).
 
Illegals being able to vote in elections means the electoral system is being rigged and affected by foreign influences. Adding a citizenship question makes it clear who is a citizen and who is not and takes away the ill-gotten power that districts with a lot of non-citizens have received.
 
Simply put: only American citizens ought to be represented in this country. Non-citizens don’t have the right to vote in federal elections in this country for good reason. And even though they have the right to vote in local elections in some states, I think they shouldn’t be able to. They aren’t citizens of this country, so they shouldn’t be represented.
 
Now, I know what some people might say: “But Freddie, aren’t you a foreigner yourself? Aren’t you being hypocritical right now?” To which I say: no, as I never held the belief that non-citizens ought to have the right to vote in a country where they were not citizens of. The representatives of the United States ought to represent AMERICANS, not foreigners, legal or illegal.
 
What’s more, only legal immigrants ought to have a path to citizenship. The ones that become citizens, such as myself, have henceforth the inherent right to be represented in government BECAUSE WE ARE CITIZENS! It makes absolutely no sense to me that any state would allow for non-citizens to be part of the group represented by the government.
 
At the risk of sounding like a right-wing cliché, America is for Americans. That doesn’t mean foreigners aren’t allowed. That doesn’t mean America is strictly for white people. That means the American government ought to represent Americans and ONLY Americans. Those who are either born here or have taken the steps necessary to become U.S. citizens are considered Americans. Other countries like Mexico explicitly prohibit foreigners from participating in the electoral system. Matter of fact, the Mexican Constitution explicitly states (translated, of course) that “foreigners shall not in any way involve themselves in the political matters of the country.” This means that foreigners don’t have the right to vote, run for office or participate in any political event like rallies or demonstrations.
 
Do you know why that is? Well, for one, Mexico doesn’t want to be turned into another country and has the common sense not to allow for foreign interference in their elections. Yeah, they have a slew of other problems, but at least they aren’t dumb enough to allow for non-citizens to be represented politically in that country.
 
Second, Mexico isn’t filled with people who feel guilty about being white (for obvious reasons) or who feel guilty for things they did but fixed or things they flat out didn’t do. Democrats in America, specifically white Democrats, hate the fact they are white and will apologize whenever they can or feel they should; they feel guilty about slavery, even though it was resolved WELL before anyone currently living in this country was born (and even though it was the Democrats who fought for slavery, something they adamantly deny); feel guilty about segregation, even though it has also been resolved; and feel guilty about “making other countries poorer because of our capitalism” which is such a nonsense statement you might as well have spoken Russian to a chihuahua.
 
Thirdly, the Mexican government doesn’t have to worry too much about b.s.-ing people about what they want to do to gain power. Mexico isn’t exactly a very capitalistic country, part of the reason it’s so crappy. But the Left in this country has to work overtime to b.s. people about their intentions. It’s why they cry “racism” at the addition of a citizenship question. It’s not about racism and they know it. It’s about districting and voting power.
 
By adding a citizenship question, districts with more illegal immigrants lose power, while districts with less gain more through the reduction of the other district’s lost power. In other words, uber-Leftist, open-borders cities like Los Angeles lose power, while rural America gains power as a result.
 
The Left HATES rural America, think we are nothing but gun-toting, God-fearing, racist, dumb, inbred hillbillies who ought to be cut down a size. In reality, we are pro-2nd amendment, yes, and God-fearing Americans, but far from racist, dumb or inbred. Matter of fact, I assure you rural Americans are 10 times smarter than Leftists from Los Angeles, etc.
 
Want to know what makes me think that? Rural Americans aren’t spending all their time dreaming about a socialist “utopia” that is entirely unrealistic. We don’t spend our time hating the color of our own skin or the color of another person’s skin (which is what racism is by definition, but the Left wants to change that definition really badly). We don’t spend our time foolishly believing giving away everything for free is at all a realistic and achievable objective. We don’t spend our time worshipping equally-as-flawed humans who make movies. We don’t spend our time watching the fake news media and parrot everything they say online. We don’t spend our time worrying about an issue that is not caused by us and cannot be solved by us. We don’t spend our time foolishly (at best) thinking that human life inside the womb is akin to Jell-O. We don’t spend our time thinking people can realistically change their genders on a mere whim or think there are an infinite number of possible genders.
 
In the final analysis of American cultures, you will find that the only people who are racist, sexist or in any way moronic are the Left, who constantly harp about people’s skin color, judge people who are white, judge people who are male, judge people who are straight and judge people who disagree with them in any way. It’s those who attack white people for being white that are racist, not those who defend white people. It’s those who attack men for being men that are sexist, not those who defend them. It’s those who believe gender is a social construct and will call that “science” who are truly moronic at best and outright demented at worst.
 
And these are the people who DEMAND we hand over our electoral power for them to do with as they please, legislating things that get closer and closer to resembling the Soviet Union? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The American people should not fall for their idiotic words regarding the citizenship question, and if that poll is any indication, it looks like most are not.
 
Americans ought to be represented in America. If a foreigner wishes to be represented, then they better go to whatever country they hail from because that is where they will be represented. Otherwise, they better hope they are here legally and wait to become American citizens like the rest of the legal immigrants here do, because they should not and likely will not be represented in this country otherwise.
 
And no, to demand American-exclusive representation in America isn’t racist. IT’S COMMON SENSE THAT LITERALLY EVERY OTHER COUNTRY EMPLOYS!
 
And before anyone says that the Bible dictates we allow foreigners and sojourners into our land, take a look at Exodus 12:48-49: “If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
Sojourners, foreigners, are supposed to follow our LAWS and will be punished if they do not follow our laws. Our laws dictate that illegal immigrants are, well, ILLEGAL. The Bible doesn’t speak in favor of illegal immigration whatsoever, unlike some fake, Leftist preachers and Christians would have you believe.

We are to treat foreigners fairly, but on the condition they follow THE LAW WE HAVE SET IN PLACE. Should they fail to do so, they ought to be punished accordingly. THAT is equality.
 
Leviticus 18:26
“But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you.”
 
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’m certain you remember the Christchurch mosque shooting that happened in New Zealand earlier this year, where 51 innocent souls were lost to a hateful bigot. In the response to the shooting, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said that the country’s gun laws “will change” and implemented a mandatory gun buy-back program targeting “military-style semi-automatic” weapons, with definitions that would include most pistols as well.
 
But surprise, surprise, virtually no one is giving up their guns. Reason, a conservative news outlet, reports that only 700 weapons have been turned in since the program began. That’s out of a possible total of 1.5 million firearms in the country (though it’s uncertain how many of those weapons fall under the established category of “military-style semi-automatic” weapons).
 
Philippa Yasbek of Gun Control NZ said: “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence. These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”
 
And therein lies one of the biggest problems with gun control and why it doesn’t work: there is no effective way of enforcing the law. Establishing gun buy-back programs hardly works as most people would rather not surrender their personal defense weapons. Just look at Australia’s gun buy-back program. Often times, advocates of gun control will point to that as a good example of gun control working. For what reason, I am not certain, as it is estimated that only 20% of banned weapons were turned in. And like New Zealand’s, Australia’s was also mandatory, not optional (not that anyone cares, as it seems).
 
In effect, no gun buy-back program can actually be mandatory because there is no way to enforce it. The police would need to spend a ton of resources and money going house to house searching for weapons (which would also likely be rather ineffective, not to mention a massive violation of people’s rights, but that hardly matters to an authoritarian regime) because they don’t know where each particular type of weapon is. In the meantime, this gives nefarious people ample opportunity to commit heinous crimes like the one perpetrated by the bigot who killed over 50 people in a mosque.
 
Which brings me to the other major reason as to why gun control doesn’t work: criminals couldn’t care less about the law anyway.
 
A New Zealand news outlet even reported that gang leaders publicly stated they wouldn’t be giving up their weapons in accordance to the “mandatory” buy-back program. The only people that would actually follow the program are those the government doesn’t have to worry about: the law-abiding populace. So this puts innocent, law-abiding people at a massive disadvantage against those who couldn’t care less about laws.
 
In case this was not made aware to the New Zealand PM or anyone else in the government, MURDER IS ILLEGAL! That sure as hell didn’t stop the Christchurch shooter, did it? That doesn’t stop other evil people from committing that same crime, does it? Of course, that isn’t to say that murder ought to be made legal. That would be absolutely insane. But that is to make the point that criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law.
 
Is it really any surprise that gang leaders, or any other criminals, would not follow the gun buy-back program? Did the PM really expect criminals to say “gee, our wonderful and great Prime Minister is making a lot of sense here. I have been entirely reformed of my egregious ways of criminality and will follow this clearly well-thought-out mandatory gun buy-back program because I am now a better person”? Is the NZ PM Dora the Explorer or something? Because you would have to be a little girl in fantasy land to believe something like that would occur.
 
Criminals, as I have said COUNTLESS times in the past, don’t care about the law. Taking away people’s guns only puts them in serious danger and at a serious disadvantage because all of a sudden, someone that wants to do something bad has their gun, but those who abide by the law then find themselves without a gun to protect themselves.
 
But of course, as we can see is the case in New Zealand and Australia (and really everywhere else that has a “mandatory” gun buy-back program), most people would rather run the risk of being labeled a criminal than run the risk of being left defenseless against a shooter. And in that case, if someone wishes to fight back and save some people’s lives, the good guy with a gun runs the risk of being put in prison FOR BEING A HERO! So the likelihood of someone running to the rescue is lessened, while the likelihood of someone going on a murderous rampage only increases.
 
Only take a look at the American city with the heaviest gun control legislations: Chicago. Do you want to know how that city spent its Fourth of July weekend? With 66 people shot and 5 killed. This is about on par with many weekends in Chicago in the past few years. A city where most law-abiding citizens find it extremely difficult to legally get a gun and most criminals laugh at the idiotic politicians that do them a favor in making their bloodbaths easier to perform.
 
And the argument that people are getting guns outside of Chicago falls flat because that also points out the flaws of gun control: why wouldn’t there be more death around Chicago than within it if gun control is supposed to end these sorts of massacres?
 
So no amount of gun control, even gun buy-back programs that are mandatory or even full-on confiscations actually work. They are heavily ineffective in terms of money and action, do more to harm people than help them, puts them in more danger than before, and most people would rather be labeled as criminals by their own government for wishing to protect themselves than run the risk of being totally defenseless in the unfortunate circumstance that they would actually need to have a gun.
 
Virtually no one wants to give up their guns because they know the sort of risk they run henceforth.
 
But I am curious to see where New Zealand goes from here. Obviously, the PM’s ever-so-popular-with-the-media-and-people-who-don’t-know-jack plan to force people to return their guns for some sort of monetary exchange has failed. And I doubt the PM would be in any way willing to reverse course and be more lax on gun control in the future. Will we see heavier action against guns by the NZ government, or simply inaction until the next shooting happens? Either way, whatever action the New Zealand government takes in the future, if it is to implement more gun control legislation, it will be entirely ineffective in a number of ways.
 
Proverbs 28:16
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
 
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.

There are a number of reasons as to why I could not be bothered to watch the U.S. Women’s team win the World Cup (congratulations to them are in order, for sure) or watch them make a fool of themselves by throwing the American flag to the ground (surprise, surprise, it was Rapinoe, the Trump-hating star of the team, that did it, but another player picked it up, so kudos to her) and get together to start chanting “equal pay”, believing themselves to be the victims of misogyny. Namely, I hardly care about soccer as it is and was more preoccupied with observing NBA free agency. However, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see just what it was that the Women’s soccer team did after winning their second World Cup in a row: whine and moan that they are being treated “unfairly” and they deserve “equal pay” as the Men’s soccer team.
 
Well, there are a few problems with this entire debacle.
 
First of all, this is strictly a FIFA issue. Even Rapinoe had the sense to only call out FIFA for this “wage gap” between men and women because the players in the U.S. actually make around the same. According to the New York Times: “According to figures provided by U.S. Soccer, since 2008 it has paid 12 players at least $1 million. Six of those players were men, and six were women. And the women hold their own near the top of the pay scale; the best-paid woman made about $1.2 million from 2008 to 2015, while the top man made $1.4 million in the same period. Some women in the top 10 even made more than their male counterparts over those years.”
 
In other words, the talented and good players are paid top dollar, regardless of gender in the United States.
 
For FIFA, things are different, and while the international organization is marred by corruption, it is ridiculous to say that they are deliberately paying women less than men for sexist reasons. Why is it ridiculous? Difference in revenue.
 
FIFA pays its male players around $400 million and pays its female players around $30 million. From those two numbers alone and with no other information or context, you could say that there is, indeed, a wage gap. Men get a bigger piece of the pie than women… right? Actually, men get a smaller share of the revenue pie from FIFA than women do.
 
Here is what Forbes says about this: “As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”
 
In other words, the men get paid more than the women do because the men’s World Cup generates FAR more money than the women’s World Cup does. If the men generate more money, they earn more money. And as we can see from that quote, the share of the pie that the men get is actually less than the share the women get. Yes, the men are still paid more because they make more, but they are paid 7%-9% compared to the women’s 23%. So if you want “equal pay”, then either you’re going to have to get those women’s numbers up or lower the share the women get of the revenue.
 
Asking to be paid the same $400 million as the men in an organizational division that barely makes 32% of that would be to ask for financial ruin to the women’s World Cup. It’s sort of similar to asking for higher minimum wage. You might be getting paid more per hour, but you’ll see those hours cut heavily, so you end up either making the same (best case) or making less money than before per week (if you even get to keep your job in the first place).
 
What the two issues have most in common is that they both rely on emotion rather than logic. An organization that only makes around $130 mil cannot pay the same amount to its players as an organization that makes BILLIONS.
 
And that’s the second problem with this entire thing: the math makes it impossible for there to be “equal pay”. The women get a bigger share of the pie than men do, but the women’s pie is smaller than the men’s. Whatever share the men get is, as a result, most likely to be more money than what the women get. This is not an issue of misogyny or sexism or patriarchal, straight white men unfairly treating women as lesser than men. It’s a matter of revenue differences that affect people’s income. Again, the men get paid more because the men generate more revenue.
 
Now, I know what some still hysterical liberals might say: “But the women’s team is better than the men’s! They should be paid more as a result, according to your capitalistic logic!” While it’s true that the women’s team has historically been more successful than the men’s, you must realize that this is women competing against women versus men competing against men. This same women’s team that has won two World Cups in a row lost to a team of prepubescent boys a few years ago – kids around 13 and 14 years old. So the U.S. Women’s team can certainly beat other countries’ women’s team, but against the men, I doubt they’d do much better because of simple biology: men are physically superior to women.
 
Even in tennis, there have been five times when a woman played against a man. The woman only won once out of those five.
 
In 1973, 55-year-old Bobby Riggs took on 31-year-old Margaret Court in what is today called The Mother’s Day Massacre. Riggs beat Court 6-2, 6-1. Court was No. 1 in the world among women and had won three major titles. That same year, Riggs also played against Billie Jean King. The woman actually won that one (6-4, 6-3, 6-3).
 
But ever since then, men have won every match against women. In 1993, Jimmy Connors (40) played against Martina Navratilova (35) in what was called the “Battle of the Sexes”. While the first set was close (7-5), Connors dominated the second (6-2). What's more, there were special rules in place to favor Navratilova. Connors was only allowed one serve per point (if he hit the net on his serve, point Navratilova instead of a "fault" so no 2nd serve) and Navratilova was allowed to hit the ball into the doubles alleys where it would normally be an out on singles, but Connors had to play it normally.
 
And the most recent case came in 1998, when the Williams sisters claimed that no man outside the top 200 could beat them. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203 at the time, first destroyed Serena 6-1 and then destroyed Venus 6-2. Following the match, Serena said: “I didn’t know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women’s circuit and he got to them very easily.” Braasch even taunted the two after the match by saying: “They wouldn’t have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun.”
 
While I’m not so sure about Braasch’s comment regarding the way he played (though I do believe he took it a little easy), Serena’s comment shows us what we know to be true: men are physically superior to women. I believe her when she says that the shots she took would’ve been winners against women. I also believe that Braasch easily got to those shots as well.
 
So when it comes to the U.S. Women’s team, if they can’t even beat 13 and 14-year-olds (to be a little fair, it’s possible the women also took it a little easy on the boys, but the boys still beat them), how could they stand a chance against the men?
 
And do you want to know what else leads me to believe the Williams sisters at least should’ve realized before hand that men are physically superior to women? The fact that they had to specifically challenge men outside the top 200. If men and women are the same, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that the top women could compete with the top men? If the best man played against the best woman and the man won, what would be the excuse? “Well, he’s No. 1. Of course he won!” But wouldn’t that also be true of the woman? As it stands, Novak Djokovic is ranked No. 1 among men and the aforementioned Serena Williams is No. 1 among women. If they played, there’s no doubt in my mind Djokovic would obliterate Williams. But the reason for this isn’t because Djokovic is so good but because he’s a guy.
 
So going back to soccer, the U.S. Women’s team isn’t better than the Men’s. The Women’s team is more historically successful, but in terms of a head-to-head matchup, the men have the upper hand.
 
Much like in other aspects of the private sector, there is no such thing as a “gender wage gap”. Men make more money than women because men either will work more or generate more revenue as is the case for the Men’s Soccer team.
 
To claim there is discrimination at play is disingenuous at best and malignant at worst. Do they really expect to be paid around $400 million like the men do in an organization that itself generates only 30% of that? Do they want the Women’s division in FIFA to be financially ruined? Because that’s how you do it.
 
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
 
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.