Shifting our focus away from more serious matters and looking towards something of entertainment and comedy, we can find a short video of an adorable 8-year-old girl who bears a striking resemblance to the female lunatic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even going as far as to tie her hair in a knot, put on glasses and don some red lipstick.
 
The video, filmed by her father, who says that many in their family noted the resemblance the girl and the Congresswoman have, shows the girl talking about climate change and socialism in a hilarious video that greatly mocks the lunatic and at least relatively showcases the girl’s superior intelligence (at least in the fact she was more than happy to give a very good mocking of AOC).
 
The video begins with the girl saying: “Like, I’m Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC, and like, I wanna talk about climate change…”, expertly mocking the fact that AOC talks like a teenage girl.
 
Continuing: “… because, like, there’s no doubt cow farts are making the climate change. Like, in July, the climate was 96 degrees and in February, the climate was 36 degrees. OMG, like that is a huge change in the climate in only…” she then proceeds to count using her fingers “four months! Like, at this rate, the world is gonna end in exactly 12 years, and, like, I’m only 29 years old now so the world will be over when I’m only…” again counts on her hand, “37 years old!” Obviously, the math is wrong, but that makes it all the funnier.
 
The girl mocks the type of climate alarmism cycle the media and the Left undergoes every six months. When it’s winter, they claim that it’s global cooling and it’s really cold because of climate change. When it’s summer, they claim it’s global warming and it’s really hot because of climate change. This is the same cycle we go through every single time we have summer and winter and it only highlights how unbelievably stupid these people are.
 
And not ignorant, but plain stupid. Ignorance would be not knowing that the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and on its own axis isn’t perfect, so we both get closer and farther away from the Sun and our planet moves between having the northern hemisphere receive more sunlight and having the southern hemisphere receive more sunlight. These are things that are taught (even if I didn’t explain them all that well) in elementary school. Even if I didn’t explain this very well, you know and can picture what I am talking about.
 
It’s hilarious that this little girl points out how unbelievably ridiculous it is for people to believe climate change has to do with the fact that it’s cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And for those who want to give the Left some leeway, yes, the Left largely talks about record highs and lows, not simply that it’s hot during summer and cold during winter, but considering there were far more record highs and lows a century ago than there are now, they ought to know just how little the climate is actually changing, at least in terms of drastic weather and temperature changes.
 
The girl then goes on to talk about socialism: “Like, I also wanna talk about socialism because socialism is so amazing! Like, socialism is actually short for ‘social media’. Did you know that? Like, I use social media, so I’m a socialist, and, like, three of the most successful countries in the world are socialist too. Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter are all very successful socialist countries. I have a lot of friends who moved to America from Facebook.”
 
Sadly, that is where the video ends, but it was brilliant through and through. I particularly loved the part where she mentions three successful countries that are socialist being Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter.
 
Apart from the fact that Facebook and Twitter are not actually countries (big shocker), I can’t help but think that she is right in as far as they are socialist. Ignoring the parts about power being centralized to one person or a small group of people because all businesses run that way, the companies are very socialist-leaning and employ censorship models that are very socialistic.
 
You can be put into Twitter or Facebook jail if you say something they don’t like or share something they disagree with. Exactly like the socialists and communists have done in the past and continue to do. I mean, remember when Jorge Ramos was detained by Venezuelan officials just because he dared show the evils that the Maduro regime was imposing on the Venezuelan people? Ramos is fairly close to Maduro in terms of political ideologies, but he showed him something he didn’t like and was treated like a criminal for it. How much worse off would a Venezuelan journalist have been in that situation? How much worse off would someone who is actually a capitalist have been?
 
And while Facebook and Twitter don’t physically put you in a jail to rot, they restrict your access and ability to exercise your first amendment rights to whomever you wish just because they disagree with what you are saying or sharing. Even if you are a feminist Leftist, if you dare criticize transgender women (men who claim to be women. Yes, it is sad that I understand the terminology and how it works) as not being actual women, you get put into Facebook or Twitter jail.
 
That’s socialism, or at least socialistic behavior.
 
Now, I don’t know if the girl had a script that was likely written by her parents, but there were parts that at least appeared like she was not reading from a script and was improvising. Like the part about telling people that socialism was short for “social media” sounded fairly improvised and something she thought up on the spot. Not to mention that even if it was all scripted, it’s clear to me that her parents are smart people, so there is good chance that the girl will turn out smart as well and recognize what she is saying here and find it funny too. Even if she doesn’t actually know what socialism is and was simply told by her parents to use that word in this context, she will know eventually and she at least has the potential to be smarter than the 29-year-old cartoon character of a Congresswoman.
 
According to the New York Post, the girl did not know who AOC was before she made the video, which is understandable considering I did not know or care about anyone of importance from the government when I was 8 apart from Argentina’s then-president Kirchner, and only then because my parents heavily disliked the guy and often talked about him. At that age, I did not care one wit about anything relating to the government or “adult” stuff and I only cared about cartoons, Power Rangers, my friends, and things kids care about. This also leads me to believe the kid does not, or at least did not, know about socialism, but again, her parents do know, so she has a good chance of being taught the right way and the right things about it and its horrors.
 
Still, the video is very funny and went viral on the internet, garnering over a million views. According to her step-father, the girl loves to act, so that might’ve been one of the reasons she went along with it.
 
Regardless, again, it shows that the girl at least has the potential to be quite smart in the future, even if she doesn’t know what socialism is. Again, at that age, I did not know either. I was not paying attention to the world around me and was simply told stories and things from my parents, such as Argentina going into default and the government stealing people’s money (including my family’s). It was at that moment that I started to not like the government so much, at least the Argentine government.
 
But one can only hope that this girl will not grow up to be the dunderhead she is portraying in this short video. Here’s hoping and praying she will be properly educated (not indoctrinated) and will recognize the evils of socialism and the Left.
 
Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
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.

The biggest story of the weekend was the fact that on Easter Sunday, the day when Christians around the world celebrate the rising of the Lord Jesus Christ from the grave, signifying His defeat over death, multiple bombs, most of which were suicide bombings, targeted churches and luxury hotels, killing around 300 people (and expected to increase) and wounding 500 others in Sri Lanka.
 
The attack is believed to have been perpetrated by a radical Islamist terrorist group called National Thowfeek Jamaath, which might have ties to ISIS.
 
Included in the death toll are over 30 foreigners and 2 Americans.
 
Obviously, this is a very big deal. The death toll is very high and the attacks were numerous, with reportedly 7 locations being targeted: three churches and four hotels. According to the Wall Street Journal, six of the attacks were suicide bombings and the other one was a failed car bombing outside the St. Anthony Shrine. Another bomb was also found near Sri Lanka’s airport, but was found and defused before it went off.
 
The Wall Street Journal also reports that 85 other detonators were found abandoned in a bus station, indicating that the attacks carried out on Easter were supposed to only be the beginning of more chaos, death and destruction.
 
Considering this is major news, influential people took notice and wished to share their thoughts. However, one must recognize the sort of language used by people like former President Barack Obama and failure Hillary Clinton.
 
Obama tweeted: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
 
Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
 
“Easter worshippers”?
 
And they’re not the only ones who used that odd term. Presidential candidate Julian Castro tweeted: “On a day of redemption and hope, the evil of these attacks on Easter worshippers and tourists in Sri Lanka is deeply saddening. My prayers today are with the dead and injured, and their families. May we find grace.”
 
Even ABC News tweeted: “Tourists, Easter worshippers lament the closure of Notre Dame.” Though that one was sent the day before the attacks, but still used that strange term.
 
Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because Christians are not “Easter worshippers”. I’ve seen many people tweeting at Obama, Hillary and others about how they can’t seemingly use the term “Christians” (maybe it burns them to mention Him) but they gloss over the fact that no Christian worships Easter. NO ONE worships Easter.
 
Do we celebrate Easter? You bet we do. But we do not worship it. We worship Jesus who rose again from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.
 
It’s such a strange term to use in what is supposed to be a replacement for “Christians”.
 
But in any case, notice how they really can’t seem to be able to use that word. Why wouldn’t they note that Christians were targeted and killed on Sunday? Why would they use such a strange and erroneous term to replace the far-easier-to-type “Christians”?
 
These are really just rhetorical questions, of course. These people are themselves not Christians and absolutely hate Christians, so at any point where Christians are targeted, especially in such a grand and horrific way, they have to completely avoid mentioning it. To them, Christians are oppressors and vicious rulers, not victims and targets of persecution and execution.
 
Notice the sort of language they use to talk about multiple horrific acts of violence against Christians versus what they said about the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand.
 
Here’s what Obama said after the NZ shooting: “Michelle and I send our condolences to the people of New Zealand. We grieve with you and the Muslim community. All of us must stand against hatred in all its forms.”
 
And now Hillary: “My heart breaks for New Zealand & the global Muslim community. We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
 
Rightly, they were outraged over the New Zealand shooting that killed 50 Muslims in a mosque. But they have no problem pointing out that Muslims were targeted in that attack while they perform verbal gymnastics to avoid pointing out that Christians were targeted in Sri Lanka.
 
The Left has no problem pointing out hatred and violence against Muslims when it happens (unless it’s Shiites being killed by Sunnis, as both are Muslims) but makes it their mission to try and diminish the effect of a far more destructive and deadly event. Not to minimize the horror of the New Zealand shooting, any destruction of life is tragic, but this attack led to more deaths and injuries, not to mention it was supposedly only the beginning of more planned terrorist attacks, likely targeting Christians.
 
50 dead Muslims is a major deal to the Left (as it should be) but 300 dead Christians and they can hardly pretend to give a damn.
 
Not that I expected anything less from these people, but it is a reminder of the sort of vile that they are. Especially looking over Hillary’s tweets. She wanted the NZ shooter’s head on a platter, denouncing Islamophobia (how come no one talks about Christophobia? Is that even a term?) and “racism in all its forms”. She says that “white supremacists terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere,” and insists that that sort of “murderous hatred must be stopped”.
 
But when Christians are the targets: they don’t get mentioned and are even lost in the crowd. “On this holy weekend for many faiths…” while not exactly wrong, as it is also Passover for Jews, this is an attack that specifically happened on Easter, a strictly Christian holiday, with Christians being the targets of the attacks.
 
They insist that we must stand in solidarity with the Muslim community around the world when they are targeted (which is rare, again, unless it is Muslim-on-Muslim violence which is frequent) and condemn Islamophobia, while not calling for any solidarity with the Christian community around the world when we are targeted and there are no calls for condemnation of Christophobia or the targeting of Christians at all.
 
And while Christophobia is technically a term, it is never outright used at any point. When someone targets gay people, that’s homophobia. Fine. When someone targets someone for their skin color, that’s racism. Fine. When someone targets women, that’s misogyny. Fine. When someone targets transgender people, that’s transphobia. Fine. When someone targets Muslims, that’s Islamophobia. Fine. But when someone targets Christians, the Left does not even recognize that they are Christians and certainly does not recognize any sort of trend of hatred towards Christians. Not fine.
 
But what makes this even worse is the actual term they use instead of Christians. If it had been “Easter observers” or “Easter celebrators” or something like that, it might’ve been marginally better. But “Easter worshippers” just rubs me the wrong way. It insinuates that what we worship is not Jesus Christ Himself, but the holiday. That we worship and have reverence towards a simple day on the week and not the Lord who made this day special with the unique and unprecedented feat of COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. That we worship something that is not God.
 
THAT is what ticks me off more than anything else. Again, I fully expected this sort of behavior from the Left. I’m not at all surprised that they gave every damn they had about Muslims being killed in New Zealand but couldn’t be bothered to pretend about Christians. That is expected, but that term is outright insulting.
 
What Christian worships Easter? Point one out to me and I will tell you that he or she is not a Christian.
 
This is the definition of passive aggressive behavior. Implicit disdain of Christians.
 
Again, not exactly surprising behavior coming from the Left, whose heart is filled with hatred and evil, but we are yet again reminded of the sort of hatred and evil that they harbor.
 
John 15:18
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated 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.

It is not often that I write a piece targeting someone who is not inherently a Leftist, but if one were to watch a recent interview of Ann Coulter with Firing Line’s Margaret Hoover, one cannot help but take note of the fact Ann Coulter is simply not a conservative anymore (if she ever was in the first place).
 
In an interview last week, Margaret Hoover asked Coulter the simple question of what she thinks of Sen. Bernie Sanders and what if the lunatic socialist were to go back to his original position on illegal immigration (which is surprisingly conservative), what would Coulter do?
 
Ann was quick in saying that if Bernie Sanders took a more similar position on illegal immigration that Trump has (and Coulter believes Trump has completely backtracked on that, so that tells you something), she’d be willing to vote for him, might work for him and she doesn’t “care about the rest of the socialist stuff,” according to Coulter herself.
 
And THAT right there is the moment we can see Ann Coulter completely abandoning conservatism, hell, even CAPITALISM.
 
Now, I knew Ann Coulter had a few screws loose, but this is stunning. She seriously considers the issue of illegal immigration to be more important than everything else? HOW STUPID CAN SHE BE?!
 
I understand that the issue of illegal immigration is of top priority in this country, but MAINTAINING THIS COUNTRY AS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY SHOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT! Because guess what? If this country does turn socialist, we really won’t have an illegal immigration problem anymore. BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL WANT TO GET THE HELL OUT!
 
One idiotic argument the Left often brings up when talking about the Border Wall is that Germany built a wall in Berlin. Yeah, that was to KEEP PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNIST SIDE! It wasn’t to keep people out of East Berlin (the communist side), it was to keep those within East Berlin from getting out. And why would they want to get out?
 
BECAUSE OF THE SAME TYPE OF POLICIES BERNIE SANDERS WANTS TO IMPLEMENT HERE!
 
There is a reason so many people want to leave Latin American countries (be it legally or illegally) and come to the United States. The reason the Left often gives is that these people simply want a better life here in America. Gee, I wonder why they’d think they would have a better life in a CAPITALIST COUNTRY!
 
If socialism reigns supreme here, we’re screwed. Utterly and properly screwed. There is good reason Ronald Reagan once famously said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
 
If America is socialist, there is no other place to escape to. Sure, Israel is nice now, but with a socialist America that would likely support Iran, Israel is toast. A few European countries like Poland are nice, but the E.U. is globalist, or global communist if you will, and Poland is nowhere near superpower status.
 
If America is socialist, that’s all three world superpowers socialist or communist. If America is socialist, the same exact things that happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and all other socialist countries will happen here. All the despair, all the famine, all the death and destruction.
 
But we can be happy because we don’t have illegal immigrants pouring into our borders because they have no reason to leave one socialist hellhole for another. We may be left starving, struggling mightily, our economy collapsed, our healthcare system in shambles, and our people utterly screwed, but at least no more illegals, right?
 
This position is peak stupidity. Either that, or she hasn’t thought this through. And you know, I used to defend her when people called her stupid. I used to think they were completely wrong, particularly because at the time, she would defend mostly conservative stances. But she’s too far gone now and I can see she is either insanely stupid or insanely desperate for attention.
 
I can’t help but remember her tweets about “putting a fork in Trump” a few months into his presidency when it’d be unreasonable to believe he would’ve solved the world’s problems in a single moment. I can’t help but think back to the joke about “who doesn’t want him impeached?”
 
One either has to be seriously and properly moronic to think this way or be excruciatingly and pathetically starved for attention.
 
And despite how I might sound, I am not angry. I’m merely disappointed. And honestly, I feel sad for her. She is fixated on the issue of illegal immigration. And again, that is indeed an issue that ought to be at the forefront of everyone in Washington, with solutions at the ready to actually take care of the problem, not make it worse. But you do not throw the entire country towards the evil clutches of socialism for a singular issue.
 
There are more important issues at hand, namely things like abortion, in my opinion. You are free to disagree… for now. But even if I was promised that all abortion would end if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Even if I was promised that everyone could become Christians if I allowed socialism, I wouldn’t take the deal. Namely because that would never actually happen. Immigration problems aren’t a thing in socialist countries because no one wants to go into one unless they plan to create trouble or to literally be terrorists. But as far as abortion and Christianity go, those two things would never be promised, much less delivered on, in a socialist country.
 
People aren’t considered people in socialist countries. Hell, people in the womb aren’t considered people here in America according to Roe and the Left. Why would I ever believe a socialist country would stop all abortions? Why would I believe they’d get people to convert to Christianity?
 
Much less the part about Christianity. Socialism is a system directly opposing Christianity. It replaces God with the government, or at least it tries to. It declares the government to have absolute power, absolute authority over everything. And since we know perfectly well that man is naturally evil, could you imagine a system where the government does this very thing? How horrible it’d be?
 
You don’t have to imagine it because THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IN EVERY SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST COUNTRY!
 
Socialism and communism are adamantly anti-Christian. They hate the idea of a God being in control over everything including them. They think they ought to be the ones in control over everything. They think they should have the ability to tell you, a poor, uneducated and not-as-smart-as-them individual precisely what to do because you’re too stupid to figure it out on your own.
 
Socialism is a system the devil is in love with, as that is what he uses in Hell. To allow for America to become a socialist hellhole just to avoid illegals coming in is committing suicide for the country. Naturally, as I explained again and again in this article, a socialist country is not going to have illegal immigration problems. Who would want to go into a socialist country? Who would leave one to go to another that’s hundreds and thousands of miles away?
 
So while illegal immigration no longer becomes a problem, you have tiny, insignificant things like mass famines, no freedom, highest income inequality imaginable, destitution, man being brought to his knees and overall death. But thank the Lord Almighty we wouldn’t have illegals crossing the border.
 
That’s worth it, right?
 
Seriously, one cannot help but think Ann Coulter has utterly abandoned all semblance of not just conservatism or even capitalism, but sanity. But I honestly feel bad for the poor girl. The Left will never accept her because of her previous stances, and particularly because of her current stance on illegal immigration still being fairly conservative. And now, the Right won’t accept her because she’s completely abandoned it.
 
Fighting a two-front war is never a good idea. Now, that doesn’t mean I’ll start treating her like I do any other insane Leftist, but I really cannot consider her to be a conservative whatsoever. Not anymore.
 
Proverbs 2:6
“For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.”
 
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.

After weeks of the Left crying up a storm about Barr being on Trump’s side and saying that Mueller did not find any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion and not enough evidence to definitively say that Trump obstructed justice (he didn’t), Attorney General William Barr has released the 448-page Special Counsel report on the investigation.
 
Now, I’m certain you can read the title and see my own opinion of the Mueller report. The reason I say it is sketchy is because it is largely written for the Left to try and continue to claim that there was collusion and that the President obstructed justice, even though it is explicitly stated that there was no conspiracy between Trump and Russia and even though it is explicitly stated that Mueller did not find enough that could constitute as criminal behavior regarding obstruction.
 
Let’s begin with what I consider the most important thing of Volume 1 (the report is separated into two volumes: one for Russian collusion and the other one for obstruction).
 
In page 2 of Volume 1, the Special Counsel ultimately determined that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
 
The Counsel did find that Russia did, in fact, try to interfere with the election, but the most significant and notorious effort of doing so came in the form of the hacking of the DNC servers, which the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI for investigation, instead opting to turn it over to a third-party organization.
 
The Counsel also had to clarify that the term “collusion” and even “coordination” do not have any actual definition in federal law. To collude with someone or coordinate with someone is far too broad of a term and can mean anything, not necessarily something criminal or nefarious. The term “conspire”, on the other hand, does have a definition and often carries with it the negative connotation that some nefarious scheme was concocted or executed. So the Counsel largely sought evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Russia, but ultimately did not find that such a thing occurred.
 
And while that easily can be summarized in less than a page, the Special Counsel still tried to at least make it look like there was some suspicious activity going on, especially when the report gets to the part about George Papadopalous, where it ignores the fact that Papadopalous had spoken with a member of the FBI whom suggested to Papadopalous that the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails, while Papadopalous then went on to try and boast about him having such exclusive information to other people.
 
The Counsel makes it look as though Papadopalous gained that information through means apart from the member of the FBI, suggesting that there was some form of collusion between at least a member of the Trump campaign and the Russians.
 
But despite how bad or negative Mueller may have wanted the report to look for Trump, with all the suggestions it brings up, and despite his efforts to try and keep the narrative alive for the Democrats and the media to use, he still can’t escape the unavoidable fact that Trump did not collude, coordinate or conspire with the Russian government to steal the election away from Hillary Clinton.
 
And the point of a prosecution and investigation is to find conclusive evidence that someone is guilty of a crime. Now, usually, a crime is investigated as opposed to a specific person with the purpose of finding a crime committed by said person, but the Left thinks we live in a banana republic.
 
In any case, the Mueller report, regardless of what is insinuated within it, ultimately finds no evidence of “collusion” between Trump and the Russians.
 
But then we get to Volume 2, the part about obstruction of justice, and that is where Mueller really wants people to suspect that there was obstruction even though he did not find anything.
 
In page 2 of Volume 2, the Mueller report has the following paragraph:
 
“… if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime it also does not exonerate him.”
 
Special Counsel, your job is not to determine someone’s innocence. Your job is not to exonerate the President of any accusations. Your job is to find evidence that would, without a shadow of a doubt, irretrievably conclude that the President of the United States succeeded or even attempted to obstruct justice.
 
You did not find such evidence, which is why you were forced to say “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime.” That overall statement is tantamount to saying: “well, I didn’t find that the subject did something criminal, but I also didn’t find that he didn’t do something criminal.” Do you see the logical fallacy here? The contradiction in that statement? If he didn’t find that Trump committed something illegal, then he can’t say that he didn’t find that he didn’t do something. Not finding that he didn’t do something is equivalent to not finding that he did something. If Mueller found that Trump did something, he would so state without “this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime”. There are only two logical options here: either Mueller found something that Trump did that was criminal or he didn’t. He can’t say both are the case at the same time and in the same relationship.

Not to mention you also can't prove a negative. No one can prove that someone DIDN'T do something. There's no way to do that, that's why the system works as "prove guilt".
 
But do you see the intention from Mueller here? He knows very well that the job of any prosecutor is to PROSECUTE not exonerate. Yes, they have to present exculpatory evidence that they might find under the Brady rule, but the objective of a prosecutor is to prove guilt, not innocence. Matter of fact, that’s how our entire judicial system works: you do not have to prove innocence – you have to prove guilt. It’s “innocent until proven guilty” for a reason.
 
And while the court of public opinion (from the Left) might find Trump guilty of obstruction, collusion, and overall being a big, huge meanie to them, in the real judicial system, one must find that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Despite the fact that everyone and their grandmothers (myself included) think that O.J. killed his ex-wife and her friend, he was found not guilty by the court due to insufficient evidence. Say whatever you will about the entire case and the trial, but that is how the judicial system found him: not guilty of the crime.
 
And it is the prosecution’s job to get that guilty verdict. Bob Mueller was the prosecutor in all of this, his job was to find that Trump colluded with Russia and/or obstructed justice in the investigation and found neither.
 
The Google definition of “exonerate” is to “absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.” And if Mueller did not find guilt, even explicitly stating so, the only other option left is to find Trump to have been exonerated under this definition.
 
Now, that doesn’t mean that Mueller has to come out and say “Trump did nothing wrong! Everyone stop trashing him!” but that is basically what he ultimately found: TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG or at least anything criminal.
 
As far as obstruction of justice goes, the things that Mueller looked into are things like how Trump reacted to the WikiLeaks thing, how he reacted to the investigation of General Flynn, how the Campaign reacted to reports about Russian support for Trump, reports from the fake news media about Russian collusion, Trump firing Comey and supposed efforts to remove the Special Counsel.
 
NONE OF WHICH COULD ADEQUATELY CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
 
First, reactions to anything don’t matter at all. With the reports of Trump colluding with Russia, how exactly do you expect Trump to react? Of course he’s going to be angry! HE WAS BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING HE DIDN’T DO! It was being alleged that his election victory and subsequent presidency were illegitimate! Frankly, I would’ve been concerned if Trump did not react like ANY NORMAL HUMAN BEING WOULD UNDER SUCH A SITUATION!
 
Second, and perhaps most importantly since this is what people will largely point towards as evidence of obstruction, Trump has the authority, as head of the Executive Branch, to remove the head of the FBI, the CIA, and anything else that is technically within the Executive Branch. Trump firing Mueller would’ve been virtually no different to Trump firing Comey. HAD HE DONE SO, which he did NOT.
 
So while the Mueller report suggests that Trump at least tried to fire Mueller, it was within his authority to have done so, but ultimately DID NOT.
 
But again, Mueller is writing this report for the Democrats and the media to try and keep the narrative alive with a summary of all the b.s. lies they have spread over these past couple of years, even though within the report it very specifically says that the Special Counsel did not find evidence of “collusion” or enough to prove Trump obstructed justice.
 
By all accounts, the Mueller Report should be seen as something that has definitively ended the allegations and speculation, but Mueller wrote it with enough ambiguity for the media to keep the ball rolling and for Democrats to launch their own investigations into this manner, despite the report’s ultimate findings.
 
Not that it’ll matter in the end, as any subsequent investigation and report from the media will be bologna and will ultimately find nothing, just like Mueller did, but this ought to tell you what we are up against: these people are completely irrational and will stop at nothing to get their way.
 
Again, the report ultimately finds no collusion and not enough to conclude obstruction. That alone is enough for me to fight back against the b.s. that will surely come from the Left.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
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.

At this point in time, it might make more sense for someone to try and make a list of what is NOT racist in today’s culture, because “woke” Leftists are throwing everything at the wall, including the kitchen sink.
 
Now, I personally do not go to libraries. Matter of fact, I haven’t been to one since my high school days, and even then, I would use my school’s library, not a municipal one. But still, the argument that libraries are racist (and you’ll see momentarily just what the argument is) is completely asinine.
 
The Library Journal posted a quote from a blogger, named Sofia Leung, who is a self-described “intersectional feminist”, a “social justice warrior” and a fan of “Critical Race Theory”, the theory that the legal system aids white supremacy. In other words, the blogger is batcrap crazy.
 
The quote from Leung, that the Library Journal posted, reads as follows: “Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries.”
 
Leung also explains just how exactly libraries are racist:
 
“If you look at any United States library’s collection, especially those in higher education institutions, most of the collections (books, journals, archival papers, other media, etc.) are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property with all of the ‘rights to use and enjoyment of’ that Harris describes in her article. When most of our collections filled with this so-called ‘knowledge,’ it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color. Collections are representations of what librarians (or faculty) deem to be authoritative knowledge and as we know, this field and education institutions, historically, and currently, have been sites of whiteness.”
 
YOU JUST CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! This reads like an idiotic teenager’s blog saying that the whole world sucks and is racist, while she listens to break-up music from boy bands or female pop stars.
 
But she’s not done. She also accuses that these collections “are paid for using money that was usually ill-gotten and at the cost of black and brown lives via the prison industrial complex, the spoils of war, etc.” Just what is this dribble?
 
Also, I like how she attempts to use the “prison industrial complex” and “spoils of war” rhetoric here to accuse LIBRARIES of stacking their collections with white authors’ works and then that they’ve stolen from people of color. It just makes absolutely zero sense.
 
One thing you just cannot miss in all of this is the simple fact that she does not use any actual evidence to back anything up.
 
First of all, there’s the accusation of libraries stacking their collections to promulgate whiteness. Yeah, you just have no way of proving that at all. As I’ve said in the past multiple times, there indeed is a white majority in America, with about 72% of the population in the country being white (including White Hispanics). So chances are that libraries will be filled more with works from white people than works from black people due to the fact that there are more white people on average.
 
Second, there’s the accusation that white people have stolen from minorities. Again, there is no actual evidence to back up these claims. In the writing world, if someone uses data from someone else, the author has an obligation to reference the source of the data. In non-fiction, you will always find a “references” portion towards the end of the book where the author will go through each and every single source that he or she used in their book. If an author fails to do that, they are subject to plagiarism.
 
Not to mention I have absolutely no idea what she means by “white ideas” or “white things”. What exactly constitutes as a “white idea”? An idea thought up by a white person? I really don’t know what this is supposed to accuse white people of, but then again, I’m a sane person who uses logic.
 
Something else I would like to mention is that she challenges the validity of the information presented by the books in any library as only supposedly being knowledge. “When most of our collections filled with this so-called ‘knowledge,’ it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color.”
 
Right, because works from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Maya Angelou, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Booker T. Washington and countless other black authors are made irrelevant because there are more white people in the libraries where their works are found.
 
And works from Copernicus, Einstein, Niels Bohr, George Orwell, and others ought to be made irrelevant because they are white.
 
Yeah, you didn’t know that? As it turns out, we can’t believe that the Sun sits at the center of the solar system because Copernicus was a white dude. Turns out that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is nonsense because he is white. Niels Bohr’s contribution to understanding atomic structure is null and void because he was white.
 
Give me a break.
 
But Leung wasn’t done there. You see, it’s not just the collections that are racist because they feature predominantly white authors, it’s the library faculties themselves who are racist.
 
Leung notes of an incident that happened at Barnard College fairly recently where an African-American Columbia student was denied access to the building. Leung makes the claims that the security guards didn’t want him in there because he was black.
 
In reality, the guy refused to show his ID and when questioned, became aggressive, according to the Daily Wire.
 
And do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of this is? A freelance writer named Jeryl Bier noted that the Law Journal, the people responsible for tweeting Leung’s post, is almost exclusively made up of white people.
 
Honestly, can’t say I’m surprised. Often the most ardent haters of white people are white people themselves. They have a strange victim mentality where they believe they have oppressed someone else when that has almost likely not actually happened. (And before anyone says anything, I of course am not talking about all white people, just the idiotic Leftist ones that buy into this sort of crap).
 
I find that those who are most critical about white people are white themselves. I think it stems from the belief that you can be exempted from being a “bad white person” if you submit to the ideology that white people are historically horrible, which is adamantly untrue.
 
Those who often blame white people for the slavery of black people often forget that many slaves that were taken from Africa were slaves in Africa as well – slaves to other Africans. They forget that the concept of slavery is not exactly an exclusively white thing. If slavery is something for which descendants of slaves ought to get reparations for, then one could easily argue that Egypt ought to pay reparations to Jewish people, as they used to hold Jews as slaves.
 
They forget that it was white Democrats that fought to keep black people as slaves while white Republicans largely fought to free black people. They forget it was white people in the U.K. Parliament that freed slaves. They forget that there currently exists slavery in the Muslim world and highly underdeveloped countries like India.
 
All things considered, white Leftists have historically been major antagonists to minorities, while white Christians and white people who have a conscience have been extremely beneficial to minorities.
 
So it’s not about someone’s skin color, it’s about their ideologies. It only makes sense that those who do not follow Christ, those who subscribe to ideologies where a central government ought to have as much power as humanly possible, are the ones who often are racist towards minorities, be it in their words, actions, or both.
 
In my last article, I mentioned that the only reason America does not heal from its “racist history” (which is the Left’s racist history) is because the Left continually keeps us from moving on by always bringing up the issue of race. It’s rhetoric like Leung’s that frustrates progress in America. The idea that white people today need to pay because of the sins of (Leftist) white people of the past is utterly moronic and does nothing to progress civilization.
 
Such an idea is tantamount to demanding a bribery; tantamount to theft. If you want to talk in medical terms, it’d be like trying to make a wound heal by trying to keep it open. It is entirely contradictory to its intention.
 
Real progress was the Emancipation Proclamation (which the Left protested). Real progress is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which the Left was largely divided on while the Right was largely unified behind). Real progress is not caring one wit about someone’s skin color, but the content of their character, as mentioned in Dr. King’s famous speech.
 
But the Left just can’t help themselves, can they? Racism flows through their blood and have to create problems that they say they will try to fix. Similar to the issue of man-made climate change, the Left has to create the issue of massive racism problems in America, when most people don’t actually care about someone else’s skin color.
 
The only racism that exists in America comes from the Left. Funny enough, that’s always where it has come from.
 
Amos 5:24
“But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
 
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.

Last week was a good week for humanity, when Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a heartbeat bill, dealing a major blow to pro-abortion advocates in the State. But before the Governor signed the bill (which was twice vetoed by fmr Gov. John Kasich), one Ohio Democrat wanted to include in the bill an amendment that would exempt African-American babies from the security of the bill.
 
Ohio Rep. Janine Boyd (D), who is herself African-American, drafted an amendment that sought to exempt black babies from the pro-life legislation. And the reason for this? Well, because not killing black babies is tantamount to slavery, obviously!
 
No, really, that was her argument: “Black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves. Our country is not far enough beyond our history to legislate as if it is.”
 
Of course that’s her argument. It’s only been, what, 156 years since slavery was abolished (at least in the Republican North). Yeah, that’s definitely not enough time to heal. I mean, sure, there isn’t a black person alive in America who was a slave, not one who has had to pick cotton or do other menial labor for absolutely no pay, but sure, we have not healed as a country yet.
 
If so, the only reason we haven’t healed is because Democrats want to pretend we still live in those days. But that’s a topic for another time.
 
But returning to Boyd, man is that a seriously tone-deaf and painfully ironic, if not outright moronic, train of logic.
 
Black babies are specifically targeted by Planned Parenthood, what with most PP clinics being in urban areas closest to minorities. Not to mention Planned Parenthood’s very own founder thought of black people as nothing more than weeds to be rooted out of the planet.
 
I often use this argument when talking about the Left’s racism (when also discussing abortion), but it is adamantly important information that I feel not very many people have at their disposal, but here it is: Margaret Sanger literally wrote a letter to her associate, Clarence Gamble, saying: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister (a black man advocating for abortion) is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
 
Planned Parenthood’s very own objective (not that any of those working in it will admit or even acknowledge) is to eradicate the African American population from the face of the Earth. Such an objective can be clearly seen not just from Sanger’s very own words to one of her colleagues but in the fact that the African-American community suffers from a 38% national abortion rate, which is far higher than all other races.
 
Thankfully, the amendment was struck down and the bill was signed by Gov. DeWine on Friday. But still, both the Democrat Representative’s desire to exempt black people from the right to life and her reasoning behind it is utterly morally bankrupt.
 
Pro-life group Created Equal president Mark Harrington said: “To reference owning humans as a defense of dismembering them is moral myopia. If it is wrong to own humans, it is also wrong to intentionally kill them.”
 
And he’s certainly right. It makes no sense to advocate for the killing of black babies with the reasoning of “it’d be like slavery if we can’t kill them”. But of course, what one would have to acknowledge in this instance is that those babies are, in fact, alive. The Left has made it their mission to utterly dehumanize all babies (and as of late, including those who are newly born).
 
Like Hitler dehumanizing the Jews, the Left dehumanizes an unborn child, both for the same reasons: kill them all.
 
The Left has not changed one single bit since the days of Jefferson Davis, who was their president when they refused to acknowledge Lincoln as their president. They still target African-Americans and still find African-Americans who were lucky enough to escape from their grasp to be useful idiots to advocate for the deaths of their own kin.
 
It is outrageous what the Left seeks to do, all with the friendly face of “getting rid of a small, insignificant problem”. They are purposefully breaking the 6th commandment over and over and over again, multiple times a day. Already, 61 million babies have been killed since 1973 in the United States alone, with 18 million of them being African-American. This year alone, at only the mid-way point of the fourth month, over 270,000 babies have been killed in the U.S. And as of the time of writing this, well over a thousand have been killed today alone.
 
There is no other way to describe this apart from a complete and total holocaust; an utter genocide of mankind. And people like Boyd come along and think we should keep it going? People like Miley Cyrus, Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep, Harvey Weinstein, Nancy Pelosi and countless others on the Left think this is a good thing?
 
You either have to be a complete and total monster to not be the least bit affected by these numbers or you have to be willfully ignorant, almost idiotic, in thinking that these are not actual people being slaughtered every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year.
 
This is among the reasons why if I come across someone who claims to be conservative but is also pro-choice, I can’t take them very seriously at all. Sure, they’d advocate for limited government, but they’d also advocate for the allowing of genocide to take place. This is advocating for restricting the basic right to life, afforded to us by our Creator, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence. Pro-choice conservatives don’t like it when the government restricts other rights and other freedoms, but somehow it is okay when it restricts the most basic of them?
 
But in any case, this is not an article meant to attack the few pro-choice conservatives in the world. This is meant to showcase just how little the Left has changed since the days of throwing a temper tantrum after the first Republican took office. They still wish to eliminate the black population, if they can. They, of course, will not broadcast it. Sanger herself mentioned that she doesn’t want people to find out what Planned Parenthood’s purpose is. But the objective remains the exact same: eliminate the black population.
 
Again, you need only look at the statistics. Even if you don’t think that Sanger’s letter is real, you at least have to accept the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted for abortion. This has been the Left’s objective from the beginning. That is because they have racism coursing through their veins. That is because they are evil by nature.
 
Now, we all are evil by nature, but some of us have been saved by Christ, while others adamantly reject Him. This routine genocide of people created by God is proof of that.
 
Revelation 21:8
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

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 is not very often that a member of the media will willfully call out an elected Democrat, much less a Presidential candidate. However, in a recent CNN “State of the Union” show, Jake Tapper interviewed Presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), discussing Swalwell’s signature campaign issue: gun control.
 
Tapper began by saying: “So, gun control is the central plank in your campaign. You wrote last year: ‘We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. We should buy back weapons from all those who choose to abide by the law. And we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.’ Criminal prosecution for keeping assault weapons. What’s the punishment for people who don’t hand in their guns? Do they go to jail?”
 
Based on Tapper quoting Swalwell, I can already comment so much on that, but I’ll hold off for now.
 
Swalwell replied: “Well, Jake, they would, but I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or shooting range. And the reason I have proposed this is because these weapons are so devastating. I have seen this as a prosecutor in the cases that I have prosecuted. We have seen these in the school shootings, from Sandy Hook to Parkland… But it’s not just the violence that they have caused. It’s the fear, the immeasurable fear, that our children live in, because they are still on our streets. I want to get rid of that fear. I want to do what Australia did and New Zealand just recently did. I think this issue just needs some bold leadership to do it.”
 
Again, I could say so much right now, but I really want to get to the main point of this article, which is Tapper rebuking Swalwell with one particular fact that the Left always chooses to ignore.
 
Tapper said: “I know you know this, but the vast majority of gun-related deaths in this country are not related to these semiautomatic assault weapons – whatever you want to call them – and the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who have purchased these weapons legally and use them safely. One of the most frequent attacks on this issue from President Trump and the Republicans is that Democrats want to take away your guns. But isn’t it fair to say you actually do want to take away people’s guns?”
 
This is some of the best journalism I have seen in a long time. Granted, the fake news media sets the bar embarrassingly low, but still. What Tapper says is correct: the vast majority of gun-related deaths in America are not due to semi-automatic rifles or “assault” weapons. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of gun owners purchase their guns legally, follow every law and regulation and use their weapons responsibly. But perhaps the cherry on top is the fact that Tapper does challenge Swalwell (something I have rarely ever seen a member of the media do towards a Democrat) and proposes that it’d be fair to say that Swalwell and the Democrats do, in fact, want to take away people’s guns because THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THIS GUY IS CAMPAIGNING ON!
 
But Swalwell’s response is actually quite hilariously bad.
 
Swalwell replied: “You know, keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns. I want the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”
 
I’m betting he was a bit blindsided by such a challenging question from Tapper.
 
But now, as I promised, I will get down to the nitty gritty stuff and fully challenge and dismantle Swalwell’s entire campaign issue.
 
Let’s return first to the quote Tapper used, specifically this part: “We should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law.”
 
Key words here are “all who choose to abide by the law”. What about those who do not abide by the law? Yes, I know Tapper asked if they’d go to jail and Swalwell basically confirmed that, but let me ask you something: how exactly would you go about doing that?
 
Registered weapons would be easy enough to at least keep tabs on, but how do you enforce this law? By having police officers check every single household that has registered weapons to check if all of the weapons have been turned in? According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) there are between 5 to 10 million AR-15 rifles that are legally owned in America. But this might be a bit of a low-ball estimate and it certainly does not include the number of illegally owned guns in America, such as some of the ones used during the Las Vegas massacre.
 
Those who abide by the law would likely abide by this law as well, but that leaves such “assault rifles” largely in the hands of those who do not abide by the law. And as it turns out, those who commit crimes, including shootings, don’t tend to care much for what the law says.
 
Now, the next thing I want to mention is that Tapper is certainly right about the vast majority of gun-related deaths not being related to semiautomatic rifles. According to data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting research, between 2010 and 2014, there were approximately 43,000 murders in America where a gun was used. A full 70% of those murders were from handguns, while a measly 3.6% were from rifles.
 
And according to the Daily Wire: “Even if one takes the 21.5% (9,228) of gun deaths that were committed using unclassified firearms, assumes that half of them were rifles (a very generous assumption given the statistics), and adds that to the 3.6% of gun deaths in which rifles were identified as the weapon used, that still amounts to just over a quarter (25.1%) of total firearm murders in the United States.”
 
In other words, even if you give some of those statistics the benefit of the doubt, you still get nowhere close to solving the issue of “gun violence” since semiautomatic rifles are a very tiny portion of the gun-related deaths in America. And according to EveryTown USA, an organization that is very supportive of gun control, about two-thirds “of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides,” with the problem of firearm suicide rates increasing by 19% over the past decade.
 
So not only are homicides far less frequent than suicides (by using a firearm), but of those homicides, a very small amount of those are done by the types of weapons Swalwell, other Democrats and 99% of the media want to take away.
 
And the last thing I want to talk about here is returning to Swalwell’s embarrassing response to Tapper’s challenging question. He says that we can keep our pistols, long rifles (supposedly he means hunting rifles) and shotguns. But he wants “the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people.”
 
First, statistically speaking, rifles are not “the most dangerous weapons” if so few of them are ever actually used in homicides.
 
Second, these are not “weapons of war”. They LOOK like weapons used by the military, but that doesn’t mean anything. In an article from last year, I showed you a couple of pictures of two different bolt-action hunting rifles. One looked like your typical hunting rifle and the other looked like one a special forces unit would use on terrorists or something. If you remember, the one that looked like your typical hunting rifle actually used a higher caliber round than the “military-style” one. Meaning that the typical hunting rifle was more powerful and more deadly than the one people think looks like a military weapon.
 
The point of that is to say that 1) an AR-15 is not a “weapon of war” because no soldier would use the AR-15 over the standard M16, M4, SCAR or ACTUAL weapons of war. The AR-15 is modeled after the M16 but it is semi-automatic (M16 can fire full-auto or burst, depending on the model), lower pressure and meant for civilian use. And 2), just because a weapon looks like it could be used in the military does not mean it would be used or is more powerful than a gun that might not look like it’d be used by the military.
 
Again, those bolt-action rifles looked different, but the more “plain” or “civilian” looking weapon was actually more powerful than the scary “military-style” rifle.
 
Third, him saying he wants to keep these types of guns away from the most dangerous people stands in contradiction with his supposed desire to have law-abiding citizens give up their guns. Again, those who abide by the law will not commit crimes, so they are not the most dangerous people.
 
What Swalwell wants to implement will do the exact opposite of what he says it’s meant to do: it will take guns away from the least dangerous people – those who abide by the law – while leaving those who do not care one wit about the law with better guns than law-abiding citizens.
 
His policies would not take away guns from “the most dangerous people”. It would take them away from those who need them most. From those who actually follow the law and would not commit atrocities like Sandy Hook or Parkland.
 
So his policies are flawed and his reasoning for his policies is flawed as well. But I guess that just sums up the entirety of the American Left, doesn’t it?
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
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 have largely avoided talking about the whole college scandal story going on with actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin because I could not care less about the problems of Hollywood Leftists, but I felt it necessary to say a little something here because of some of the comments that Loughlin’s family has made about the entire fiasco.
 
To summarize the entire thing as best I can, Loughlin and Huffman face charges for bribing the University of Southern California (USC) into letting their kids attend the school. Obviously, it was wrong and the two are paying the price for their illegal actions, but I do not care all that much about that. College, for the most part, is a cesspool of Left-wing garbage, so I couldn’t care less about the incestuous relationships that are present between Leftist schools and Leftist Hollywood elites.
 
But the comments coming from Loughlin’s family are something that I think I should take note of, to some extent.
 
According to HotAir.com: “’Lori is used to getting what she wants,’ says the family source. ‘This is why she got in trouble in the first place. She got fixated on getting her girls into USC.’… ‘For her, there was no other way… They needed to be at USC. It was very important for her to be able to say that her girls were at USC.’ For Loughlin, 54, ‘it was absolutely a status thing’ for her daughters to attend the elite Los Angeles university, where the admission rate was 13 percent in March 2018, the family source says. ‘And the fact that she wanted the girls to have things that she never had growing up.’”
 
Well, I guess getting a bad reputation is something Lori did not have growing up, so I’m sure her daughters appreciate it.
 
Jokes aside, I really just want to focus on that whole “it was absolutely a status thing” comment. I, for one, am not really surprised at all about that sort of mindset. Of course it was a status thing! For the Hollywood elite, sending their kids to college is not so that they can get an education (God knows colleges don’t offer that anymore). It’s about prestige. It’s about being able to tell people “Mmm, yes, my son is studying at Hhhhhaaaaaarrrrvvvaaaaarrrrdddd.” (Just imagine saying that in the most obnoxious and snooty voice possible while holding a glass of wine or champagne). It’s about being able to tell people “my child is better than your child”. Basically, it’s the adult, yet still very childish version of “my dad can beat up your dad.”
 
These people are incestuous, as I’ve established. In this case, that means they are entirely codependent on one another and on one another’s approval and satisfaction. Why do you think people like Harvey Weinstein would so often champion women’s rights while simultaneously doing unspeakable things to them in private? It’s because they seek one another’s approval and sending kids off to prestigious colleges is part of acquiring some bragging rights, at least for the ones who are old enough to have children going to college.
 
To these people, it’s shameful if their kids don’t go to an elite school. It’s shameful if, as with the case of Lori Loughlin’s daughter, their child has a YouTube channel about make-up tutorials that draws in millions of people and can be a legitimate source of income. That’s not elite; that’s not special. Her parents need to be able to tell their friends that their daughter attends a highly exclusive and prestigious university, studying the various genders of a tree and getting barely passable grades.
 
If they can tell other people that sort of thing, they feel special and prestigious themselves. It is, as the family source says, a status thing.
 
But it’s petty. Even if Loughlin and Huffman had gotten their children legitimately enrolled into her school, the reasons behind it all are still insanely petty and sad. These are people that depend entirely on what others think about them. If there is someone out there who MIGHT make fun or gossip about their child not going to a prestigious school (which highlights Loughlin’s and Huffman's narcissism that she might think people think about them all the time), they can’t possibly take it and will go to any means, even illegal ones, to avoid being shamed about it.
 
Well, despite what prestige or status you get out of telling people your child goes to an elite school, there is no greater status or more prestige than in being able to call yourself a follower of Christ and a child of God.
 
All the Loughlins and Huffmans of the world get out of bragging about where their child is being indoctrinated is just that: bragging rights. In reality, no one honestly cares about that. Why would they? The people the Loughlins tell this stuff to are just as self-centered and narcissistic and incestuous as they are, so why would they be impressed by such a thing? If anything, they might get envious (which honestly might also be what the Loughlins and Huffmans sought, which makes it even more petty and sad), but certainly not impressed.
 
But that is all they can get out of that. If, however, you are a child of God and a follower of Christ, your rewards far exceed that of “bragging rights”.
 
Namely, what you get is access to the most prestigious and hard-to-access place in all of existence: Heaven. I might not be able to get into Hhhhaaaarrrvvvaaaarrrddd, but I know I can and will get into Heaven due to the only requirement for doing so is to receive Christ as your Lord and Savior. I’ve done that, and I continuously do my best to obey the Lord, so I know I’ll get into Heaven. But I can’t say the same for these people.
 
All that is required to enter the most coveted area in all of existence is the receiving of Christ Jesus into our hearts, that He would forgive our sins and redeem us in the Eyes of the Lord.
 
And yet, not everyone does it. Now, I won’t go much into that, since that’s a topic on its own and I know full-well why people don’t do it, but it should be pointed out that the most logical thing anyone can do is to follow Jesus Christ.
 
But in any case, the sort of reward you get out of being a Christian is eternal life at the side of God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. There is no greater status than that of being a Christian. And I do not mean an earthly status. Of course, being a Christian will lead people into a life of persecution by wicked people, so it is not an earthly status where one can receive the benefits of it immediately. However, the status, the rewards, come in the form of a rejoicing Father who welcomes His lost sheep.
 
Personally, I’d much rather appease the Lord than brag to Man about what I can do or have done. I’d much rather follow Christ than receive any form of status from Leftist Hollywood.
 
Galatians 1:10
“For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
 
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 recent House Oversight Committee, socialist lunatic and less-popular-than-Trump-in-her-own-state Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel if inaction or even delayed action on climate change could cost American lives, which both said “yes” to, which AOC agreed with.
 
Ignoring the fact that this is basically like asking your mom if you really are a “handsome boy” (of course she's going to say you are. SHE'S YOUR MOM), what all of these people are saying is flatly untrue.
 
In my previous article about climate change, specifically man-made climate change, I talked about how our CO2 emissions are completely unnoticeable in our climate and taking everyone out of the planet would not make any difference whatsoever in how warm or cold the planet would get for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that God is the one in control of the planet, not us.
 
So from that alone, we can see the falsehoods of AOC’s, John Kerry’s and Chuck Hagel’s statement and assumptions. There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We have no control over it, so no resolution will do anything to “remedy” the false problem.
 
And certainly, not acting on it or “delaying” action on it is not going to cost lives whatsoever. Climate change has not killed anyone ever. People can die from being too cold or too hot, no doubt, but the long-term change of the climate is not responsible for any deaths. It’d be like claiming that water slowly kills people because we all drink it and eventually die. People certainly do die, eventually, but water or the changing climate is not the culprit (unless someone drowns, of course).
 
However, I know of something that will 100% cause American deaths if applied: the Green New Deal.
 
While I’ve already talked extensively about it, I felt it necessary to mention this considering AOC’s chosen words of climate change inaction or delay-of-action would cost American lives.
 
We already are fairly familiar with the concept that the GND would cost nearly $100 TRILLION on American taxpayers, but one little article from RealClear Politics and one table in that article really helps put that massive number into perspective.
 
The article I am talking about is titled: “Why the Green New Deal is Financially Lethal”. Now, that is as obvious a statement to make as if one where to write an article saying: “Why Michael Jordan is a Basketball Legend.” Of course MJ is a basketball legend and of course the Green New Deal is financially lethal. The only difference here is that there are really stupid people out there (namely children who choose to skip school to yell at old ladies that they need to implement the GND) who think the GND is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring nothing but good things like a saved planet, unicorns, free money for everyone and not ever having to worry about anything ever.
 
So the writer of the article mentions in great detail just why the GND would be so disastrous for Americans.
 
The article says that “the top 50% of all earners account for about $8 trillion - $9 trillion in Americans’ income and produce somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in tax receipts (excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes). The top 10% account for only half of this income but 70% of the taxes. The lower half contribute a mere 2.7% of income taxes.”
 
In other words, not even the richest of the rich have the money to pay for even 10% of the estimated cost of the Green New Deal, even if you were to literally take all of their money. Which, of course, means that everyone else will be forced to contribute, so the GND is not only a “tax on the rich”. It’s a tax on everyone, which means those already at the bottom will suffer the most.
 
The article also shows a table that I will detail to you. The table is split into three categories: the “goal” or the planned portion of the GND, the estimated cost of that plan and the estimated cost per household, all for the first ten years of the GND were it to be applied starting in 2020.
 
The table reads as follows:
 
Goal: Low-Carbon Electricity Grid; Estimated cost: $5.4 trillion; Estimated cost per household: $39,000.
 
In other words, each household will be forced to pay an extra $39,000. Now, I don’t think this is per year, but a total cost, but keep in mind that that’s just for ONE aspect of the Green New Deal. Let’s keep going, shall we?
 
Goal: Net Zero Emissions Transport System; Estimated cost: $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion; estimated cost per household: $9,000 to $20,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Jobs; Estimated cost: $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion; cost per household: $49,000 to $322,000.
 
Goal: Universal Health Care; Estimated cost: $36 trillion; cost per household: $260,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Green Housing; Estimated cost: $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion; cost per household: $4,000 to $12,000.
 
Goal: Food Security; Estimated cost: $1.5 billion; cost per household: $10.
 
I also want you to keep in mind that this table is just for the first roughly 10 years of the Green New Deal (and this table also doesn’t include things like eliminating air travel and implementing a train system in its place, etc.). All of these costs are for the first 10 years of the resolution. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can make at least $361,000 every ten years (and that’s using the low estimate costs) to pay in taxes AND STILL PAY THINGS LIKE RENT, WATER, FOOD AND TAXES OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL!
 
The average family income per year in the U.S. is around $56,000. Times ten, that’s $560,000, but that’s before tax. Those who make that much money per year are charged a 12% tax rate UNDER TRUMP’S TAX RATE WHICH THE LEFT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY JACK UP!
 
And that’s just income tax. With only that, people making the average for a household will be left with only $50,000 after income tax alone (roughly). So there is even less money to take from the pool to pay for any one of these items included in the Green New Deal, let alone all of it. My point here is that people simply can’t possibly afford paying the taxes from the Green New Deal AND afford to live even remotely comfortably.
 
And like I’ve said multiple times: socialism doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Those at the top are made poorer under socialism (unless they are in the government) and those who already were poor are made poorer still. Just look at Venezuela. They used to be one of, if not the richest nation in Latin America, but after years of socialism, the government is rationing ELECTRICITY!
 
And by the way, don’t think that just because we are not them that we can’t end up like them. Universal healthcare, which is supposed to be free, is notorious for having to ration its supplies. In Great Britain, for example, the elderly are forced to go blind because of rationing in their healthcare system. They can’t get surgeries to correct or even save their eyesight, so they go blind.
 
And in Venezuela, hospitals barely have the supplies to treat their patients, so you bet there’s a lot of rationing going around.
 
So those who really need healthcare, those at the bottom, are made to suffer the most. They are the most likely to get sick and/or hurt and are the most likely to need healthcare that is now made to serve the “greater good”, resulting in rationing and a lower standard of healthcare.
 
Proposals like the Green New Deal are truly what would bring about American deaths.
 
“But it’s supposed to help the environment,” I hear you say. Yeah, well, a whole lot of good that’s gonna do if we are the only ones stupid enough to do this. The GND, even if it could actually do what is advertised of it: save the planet, is still only an American proposal. The biggest carbon gas emitters in the world are India and China and you don’t see them give a single flying you-know-what about the environment. They are not going to implement something as stupid as the GND BECAUSE THEY DON’T NEED TO! India is already socialist enough. China is literally communist. They already have all the power they could want (of course, people always want more, but still).
 
The REAL point of the Green New Deal is to force America to make a hard turn towards socialism, where the government regulates everything (and I do mean everything, if California has considered text taxes and “drinking water” taxes). The REAL point of the GND is to fundamentally change America into an unrecognizable socialist monster, something it was never meant to be.
 
The REAL point of the GND is to give people like AOC as much control over you as they can get. As a result, not only are the people left without any freedom whatsoever, but they are left to never experience the benefits that were promised.
 
People are promised that the GND would “solve” climate change. It can’t for the reasons I stated in the beginning. People are promised that the GND would provide people with healthcare. Yeah, Venezuelan-style healthcare. People are promised that the GND would provide guaranteed jobs for everyone. It would literally terminate the vast majority of jobs today.
 
And it’s the same song and dance as it’s ever been. Lenin promised the people of Russia power. He gave himself all the power. All dictators promise people the world if they help them get into power. It always ends the same way: with the dictators living with all the power and the people left to be their worthless subjects.
 
Like the devil, the Left promises people the whole world, but it’s always one massive lie. Satan promised Eve she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But that came at the cost of her and Adam being kicked out of literal paradise. The Left promises safety from a fictitious man-made change in climate, but at the cost of individual freedom.
 
Adam and Eve did not even become like God by eating of the forbidden fruit. The first thing they did upon eating the fruit is acknowledge their nakedness – not their sin against God, but their shameful nakedness. What knowledge of good and evil did they receive, then? Certainly not one akin to God’s.
 
Likewise, the American people would not receive the advertised benefits of this proposal. All they would receive is being kicked out of capitalist paradise.
 
These are promises that are meant to ensnare people, but will never actually come to fruition. Only Satan benefited from tricking Eve and only the government benefits from socialism.
 
But certainly, both Satan and socialists are eventually punished by God.
 
The Green New Deal, with its high-cost plans, is the only thing that would actually cost Americans their lives. It is financial suicide that could lead to actual suicide for many. One can only hope nothing close to the Green New Deal is ever made into law, for that would mark the official end of the United States of America.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
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.

After roughly two years of Attorney General Jeff Sessions doing nothing to run his Department of Justice, choosing to look into low-priority weed-related crimes, new Attorney General William Barr has already done more for this country in a couple of months than Sessions did in his entire time as AG. And as far as we can see, this is only the beginning for AG Barr.
 
After telling Special Counsel Robert Mueller to wrap up his investigation, leading the Special Counsel to find no evidence of collusion and leaving it up to Barr to determine whether the firing of James Comey and the Twitter rants against the Special Counsel were considered obstruction of justice (spoiler alert: they’re not), Attorney General William Barr is set to “assemble a team to investigate the origins of the Obama administration’s FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
This also comes a day after William Barr had spoken to the House Judicial Committee, where he mentioned that he believes that there was spying of the Trump campaign (why would he even say, under oath, that he thinks so and plans to investigate it if he didn’t honestly believe there was anything wrong there?), saying he would look into whether such spying was warranted or not (which is likely just a means to keep the Dems from looking too much into what he is doing).
 
During the hearing, Barr said: “I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”
 
What’s more, Fox News has reported that “the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) is separately looking into whether Comey mishandled classified information by including a variety of sensitive matters in his private memos” and will look into “the FBI’s FISA application process.”
 
And if they find what I think they will find – an FBI director (and perhaps a former CIA director) using the FBI as a political weapon against someone he doesn’t like with the purposes of swaying, if not outright fixing, the results of an election – then we could see James Comey in some serious trouble at some point down the line.
 
And that would only likely be the beginning of it. People like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and whomever was involved in the spying on the Trump campaign could face some time as well. And that’s just from these two investigations alone. If they result in what I think they will result (or at least hope they will result), other investigations could be opened as well, namely things like investigating the Steele dossier, investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mails again (remember: Comey said there would be no charges against her, but he was overreaching his power as he was not the AG at the time and there was never a trial, only Congressional hearings, so double-jeopardy does not apply here), investigating the Uranium One deal, investigating the Clinton Foundation with regards to Haiti (reportedly, the Foundation stole money that was donated to the people of Haiti after a terrible earthquake back in 2010), and some other things.
 
Of course, this is largely a pipe dream at this point. Possible, but I don’t know if entirely likely. For one, they would likely have to wrap up this planned investigation before moving on to other things. Not to mention I am not entirely certain that the DOJ will ever actually prosecute the Clintons for anything. And as far as Obama goes, while I think he was the head honcho of the FBI spying on Trump, I am not certain the DOJ will prosecute him either for some of the same reasons as with the Clintons.
 
Still, this is definitely a step in the right direction of applying some seriously overdue justice on those who have sought to use the power of the State to influence an election and overturn its results when it wasn’t what they wanted.
 
For two years, the media has insisted that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. And while this 100% is not going to stop, regardless of what Mueller has said in his report (Schiff is so full of it he claims the evidence is plentiful and out there for anyone to see, despite Mueller’s findings pointing to the contrary), we are at least beginning to turn the tides a little bit.
 
Rush Limbaugh theorizes that the Mueller investigation was the “insurance policy” as noted in one of the released text messages between Strzok and Page. He theorizes that the investigation is meant to be a sort of cover-up for the Obama administration spying on Trump and people working for Trump, as well as a sort of cover-up for Hillary for her role in the Steele dossier (you know, funding the thing?).
 
I’m not 100% sure if the Mueller investigation in itself was meant to be the “insurance policy” considering Strzok wrote that text months before the election even took place, but I do think the FBI spying on Trump (at the behest of Obama, whom Strzok and Page mention in their texts) was supposed to be the “insurance policy”, with the Mueller investigation eventually being a sort of bonus after Trump fired Comey (which a lot of people honestly should’ve expected).
 
But whether I am right or Rush is right, what is important here is the fact that, after two years of investigative resources being wasted in a witch hunt, Attorney General William Barr has the guts to do what Sessions could not be bothered to do: investigate the rotten stench coming from the Left.
 
Sessions should’ve looked into SOMETHING when the Strzok-Page texts were revealed. He should’ve looked into something when we discovered that the FBI was, indeed, spying on Trump. He should not have recused himself from the Russia investigation, which sought to look at everything in Trump’s life going back to the day he was born, seeing if he was colluding with Russians in the utero.
 
Instead, the biggest news Sessions announced since his recusal was his intention to look into weed farms and other dumb things. Yeah, because in the midst of one of the biggest political scandals in American, if not world, history, one of the few people who can do something about it ought to spend his time busting potheads.
 
Thankfully, we now have an Attorney General who is not afraid of actually investigating wrongdoings (not people, for the record, but reportedly criminal actions, as investigators in countries not in a banana republic tend to do).
 
Because what we know, and what AG Barr knows, is that the FBI did, indeed, spy on the Trump campaign. One can make the case for this being legitimate or illegitimate (guess which side I am taking), but that’s precisely what Barr is going to look into. Not Comey specifically to find if he did something wrong, but a particular action that Comey was involved with, or at least heavily responsible for, and investigating if there was reasonable cause for what he did.
 
But regardless of the findings, this is at least a step in the right direction. The FBI spying on Trump is a big deal that should be looked into, regardless of whether or not the FBI had a legitimate reason for doing so (I’m willing to bet they didn’t if the Steele dossier is all they had to go on, which has been confirmed to be garbage).
 
We should thank God for this.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
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.