There are a lot of people in this day and age that seem to think that God, or at least religion, and science are completely incompatible with one another. That one strictly requires faith, but not backed up with facts and evidence, and the other strictly requires facts and evidence, but not supported by any faith.
 
That is 100% erroneous and unrealistic. And I will explain just what I mean in a moment.
 
First, let me introduce you to Marcelo Gleiser, an Astro-physicist who has won the Templeton Prize, a prize given to those who have “made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” The prize also gives out $1.5 million, which is more than the Nobel prize gives.
 
Gleiser recently told Agence France Presse that “Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”
 
He also told Yahoo News: “I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited,” sort of taking a Socratic approach to knowledge and understanding that we truly know nothing.
 
Gleiser also points out that “everybody wants to know how the world came to be… Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point. This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it’s called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck.”
 
He also says that those who believe the universe and everything that exists was literally created in six days “position science as the enemy… because they have a very antiquated way of thinking about science and religion in which all scientists try to kill God. Science does not kill God.”
 
And I have some things to say about this. First, a good number of scientists are atheists and devote their careers to finding out more about the universe, yes, but with the particular point of trying to disprove God or suggesting that there is an answer as to how things came to be that do not include God.
 
People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind as such scientists (and I would include Bill Nye the Science Guy, but he only has a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical science, soooo…). But both of these guys often try and insist that God is 100% not real, cannot possibly be real, and that science already has proven that He is not real, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
So we certainly have good reason for not being keen towards scientists who try to prove God does not exist using evidence that does not allude to that in the slightest. If anything, the more we find out about our universe and the more complex we see it to be, the more it goes to show that it couldn’t have come from a massive cosmic accident and that it had to have been specifically designed this way, as it works in perfect synchronization with everything else.
 
The more we find out about DNA, while scientists try and prove evolution using it, we see more and more evidence of the complexity of the creation and the intricate design by an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being, who is the only being who could possibly have created such a thing.
 
But it is precisely because of this that I also have to agree with Gleiser when he says that science does not kill God. If anything, it further goes to show that God does, indeed, exist.
 
But now, allow me to return to something I said earlier and the explanation I promised for it. In the beginning, I said that people seem to think God and science are incompatible with one another; that one strictly and exclusively requires faith but with no evidence and the other strictly and exclusively requires evidence but no faith. Like I said, that is erroneous.
 
From what I just mentioned about DNA and other things, it does not require blind faith to believe in God. We see, every day, His creation at work. Everything we see, touch, smell, hear, taste, etc. is proof of God’s creation. The further we investigate the things we see, and even do not see with the naked eye; the things we can touch and cannot touch; the things we smell and cannot smell; the things we hear and cannot hear; and the things we taste and cannot taste, the more we can become convinced that the theory of everything coming from nothing by pure chance (which is nothing but a mathematical calculation of probability) is ludicrous.
 
Seeing just how everything works, discovering what composes every little thing in the universe does more to PROVE God’s existence than disprove Him.
 
What’s more believable and requires less faith? Believing that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created everything or that everything we know of this universe came from nothing and it was all a massive coincidence that it all works as it does and there are no complications with it that would disrupt the entire universal ecosystem?
 
Personally, I think it requires more blind faith to discover more and more about the universe and think that God is definitely not real.
 
But that’s just one part of the equation. There’s also the notion that “the other”, or science, requires nothing but evidence and no faith. Again, that’s completely wrong.
 
The scientific method REQUIRES a hypothesis. What’s a hypothesis if not some sort of belief or faith that something will be the way one thinks it will be? Science REQUIRES faith to work to its fullest extent, otherwise one would find it much more difficult to use the scientific method.
 
Not to mention that science is not always correct about its evidence. Take the brain, for example. Neurobiologists are constantly finding new things about the brain that they thought were in other places in the brain. The information they previously had about the brain, including the evidence, was not 100% correct.
 
So how can one be 100% sure that God does not exist when one can’t be 100% sure of the brain’s functions in how it works? How can one dismiss the idea of a higher being existing when we know so exponentially little about the universe we live in? We haven’t even fully explored the Earth yet, at least when it comes to the oceans!
 
So Gleiser is right in saying that science doesn’t kill God. Naturally, as nothing can kill God. The problem arises when people use science to further their own agendas that do nothing to advance humanity. The problem with the theory of evolution (and really, there are a LOT of problems with that theory) is that it only goes back so far – to the single living organism that evolves into everything else in the span of millions and millions of years, but it does nothing to explain how that single living organism got there in the first place. If something evolves, it had to have come from something that was already there. And if something living evolves from something else that is living, that previous living thing had to have already been there.
 
Never mind that the theory does nothing to explain just HOW one species can evolve into an entirely different one (I agree that things can adapt and evolve to better suit their environments, but believing a human can come from a monkey, a monkey can come from a reptile and a reptile can come from a fish, which can come from whatever else honestly takes more faith than believing in God).
 
So even the theory of evolution HAS TO INCLUDE GOD FOR IT TO BE FULLY EXPLAINED AND MAKE SENSE!
 
But in any case, the relationship between science and God isn’t antagonistic. One does not hate the other nor does one try to destroy the other. God CREATED everything, and that includes science. God gave humanity the ability to use logic and reason, and thus, the ability to study the things around it.
 
It is only in man’s sinful nature that we find people who pervert science to further a selfish cause. Those who adamantly insist that God is not real and can’t possibly be do a disservice to science, not to mention to God.
 
As I said, the more we find out about our universe, the more we discover its complexity and the improbability of it all being the result of a simple mathematic calculation of probability that has no actual power to dictate anything.
 
Chance does not decide the outcome of a coin flip, it only calculates the probability of an outcome. So chance can’t possibly decide the outcome of the entire universe’s history, only calculate the probability of it all happening. It has no actual power to DO anything. It's not a thing. Those who believe in chance are giving it a power it does not have - they're giving chance the power of "being".
 
God, on the other hand, has ALL the power to do everything. The dismissal of His existence as being antiquated does nothing to progress science itself or humanity. It only serves to further pervert both.
 
John 1:3
“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
 
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 always love sharing good and happy news, particularly the kind that really bring a smile to my face, and this article has such news.
 
In a recent Siena College poll asking New Yorkers a number of questions, such as whether they think New York is on the right track or headed in the wrong direction (43 and 46% respectively, interestingly enough), the poll asked how New Yorkers viewed a number of people ranging from Chuck Schumer (51% approval), to Kirsten Gillibrand (43% approval) to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bill de Blasio and President Donald Trump.
 
And this is where we find the best part of the entire thing. President Trump has a 36% approval rating in the state of New York. Now, that’s not exactly ground-breaking, although higher than I honestly expected, but not all that high either. It’s a reasonable amount, all things considered.
 
However, current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is two points BEHIND Trump at 34% and freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was touted as being the future of the Democrat Party, is at an embarrassing 31% approval, with 44% disapproving.
 
This is downright HILARIOUS to see. But wait, there’s more. A plurality of New Yorkers (38%) view her as the villain responsible for 25,000 New Yorkers not getting new jobs after the Amazon deal fell through.
 
Now, this is not the first poll to signal AOC’s unpopularity. Last week, Gallup found Ocasio-Cortez’s popularity taking a tumble, even finding that the more people get to know her, the less she is liked.
 
At least that’s something that she has in common with Hillary.
 
But due to these numbers, AOC went on a tirade online, blaming everything from Fox News to racism and sexism and bigotry for her poor numbers.
 
“[P]eople know more [about me] bc Fox News has turned into ‘AOC TMZ’ (no offense to TMZ), so awareness is growing w/GOPers,” the unpopular lunatic tweeted on Friday.
 
To which I would say the following: GOPers already know about you, you dimwit. We abhor the things you stand for and know for a FACT that they don’t work and would bring about the destruction of the United States. It’s not like she has been a silent, out-of-nowhere Congresswoman or even a candidate. Her defeat of Crowley in the primaries was a big surprise and her notoriety, not to mention popularity, rose since then. She has been EXTREMELY loud about her insane rhetoric since even before she won her race, so it’s not like Republicans were not aware of her.
 
Not that this amount of logic exists within her mind. No, she instead chose to pull the “racist” and “sexist” cards:
 
“When ‘centrists’ care more about the GOP base than the Dem base, bigotry gets legitimized. This is *the* playbook. GOP does it w/ virtually every Dem figure who isn’t a white male: otherize, demonize + splinter. It’s vital that we adapt & dismantle this approach, not cow to it.”
 
Yeah, I don’t even know where to start with that considering how this is so incoherent you’d think a 2nd grader wrote this.
 
But let’s give it a shot. Perhaps it’s important to note this is a reply to a tweet that read: “It’s interesting to see centrists suddenly downplay or ignore the effects of racism, sexism and Fox News targeting when discussing AOC’s overall approval ratings.”
 
Yeah, that’s too great a leap in logic for me to follow. How is it that she was fairly popular in the past (not by that much, but she wasn’t in this much of a hole) but all of a sudden, because Fox News is reporting on her unpopularity, she’s unpopular and it’s because she’s a female minority? What exactly changed here?
 
Not to mention neither the original tweet nor the AOC lunatic and victim reply do anything to answer just why she’s LESS POPULAR THAN TRUMP IN HER OWN STATE!
 
Did the people that elected her (and she received less votes than someone typically does for winning nearly 80% of them at barely over 100,000) all of a sudden become racists and sexists? Is that what we ought to believe here? Because AOC is saying she’s only unpopular now because Fox News is talking about her more (don’t know how that would negatively affect her like this, but sure, let’s go with that excuse) and because people are racist and sexist. So does that make her constituents racists and sexists?
 
I would argue her killing 25,000 jobs for New Yorkers and costing the state billions of dollars in tax revenue are at least some of the reasons people are unhappy with her. Or maybe the fact that she essentially defended Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism by making HER the victim of Islamophobia, which is adamantly ridiculous.
 
Either way, I don’t imagine her little tirade will do much in the way of regaining some of her popularity. It certainly doesn’t help to try and blame Fox News. It wasn’t a Fox News poll that initially showed these results. It was Gallup, which has Trump’s approval rating at only 39%, which is ludicrous.
 
But to the Left, they would be happy to see such numbers for Trump, but all of a sudden, when it comes to AOC, the data is flawed or bigoted?
 
And it’s not like you can even make the same argument for me. Yes, I take Gallup’s approval rating of AOC more legitimate than of Trump’s but that’s because it’s backed by even a New York poll that shows similar numbers.
 
That’s not to say that Gallup is 100% trustworthy, but it does appear to come to agreement with EVEN ANOTHER LEFTIST POLL, which actually tried to casually bury those numbers. If you look at the datasheet of the poll, which has 36 questions total, the question about Trump’s approval rating, de Blasio’s approval rating and AOC’s approval rating are a bit further down in the poll.
 
And by the way, the poll says that the sample had 47% Democrat registered voters and 21% Republican, so even with that sort of disparity between parties, Trump is STILL MORE POPULAR THAN DE BLASIO AND AOC!
 
Granted, part of that may be the fact that you’re more likely to find Democrats than Republicans in that state, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Trump is still more popular.
 
If you divide things down party lines, it shows that Trump’s favorability with Democrats sits at 15%, but with Republicans it sits at 79%. De Blasio’s favorability with Dems sits at 48%, but only 14% with Reps and AOC’s favorability with Dems sits at 47% with only 6% of Reps favoring her.
 
But even with much of the Democrat Party favoring AOC and de Blasio, both still fall short of Trump by a few points. And again, this is with a 47% Democrat sample compared with only 21% of Republicans. Which means that Independents also disapprove of both.
 
The sample had 26% Independents, with 40% favoring Trump, 29% favoring de Blasio and 22% favoring AOC.
 
Overall, it is fantastic to see Republican President Donald Trump polling better (if slightly) than Bill de Blasio and even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is essentially the face of the Democrat Party (sorry, Nancy).
 
This is the sort of thing that puts a smile on my face.
 
Proverbs 16:7
“When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”
 
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 rare for a sitting president to not be popular with their own party. One would have to be doing an embarrassingly poor job of leading the country for a president’s party to not like him or her. So it comes as no surprise at all that President Donald Trump is polling so well with Republicans.
 
In a recent Morning Consult poll that surveyed an impressive 53,408 registered voters who said they may vote in Republican primaries or caucuses in their state, 85% of them approved of the job Trump is doing as President, with that number having ticked up two percentage points in the last month.
 
According to the Washington Times: “Another 76 percent of the voters support Mr. Trump’s nomination, and that too has risen two percentage points in the past month.”
 
However, I would not be talking about this unless there was a good reason. It’s painfully obvious that a president’s party will almost certainly approve of the job he or she is doing. Even if their overall approval numbers aren’t great (which is not the case for Trump anyway), the president’s party will always likely support them.
 
This much is obvious, so just why am I talking about this? Because of something specific that the poll found.
 
According to the Washington Times: “The painstaking poll also gauges support for Mr. Trump rather than another GOP candidate – this among 27 different demographics. That support ranges from a low of 62 percent among moderate Republicans to a high of 91 percent among those who are ‘very conservative.’”
 
And THAT is what I want to focus on. Yes, it’s not something that should be unexpected, but it does tell us something very, VERY important about Trump and the way his base sees him: he’s pretty conservative.
 
Again, that’s not exactly breaking news, but it should be a sign for anyone who is still a NeverTrumper and considers themselves to be a conservative that the vast majority of those who consider themselves “very conservative” support Trump almost unanimously.
 
And this makes a whole lot of sense. For the most part, the only things NeverTrump Republicans can attack him for are personality traits and similar things. They will attack him as being a racist, as being a brute, as being an idiot, as being unsophisticated and unqualified for the job, as spending too much time on Twitter trolling or attacking people, etc.
 
In the meantime, they ignore the record-low unemployment rates, the great job creation numbers, the booming economy, the lower taxes, people’s bigger paychecks (unless they live in leftist states, for the most part), the deregulation that’s been in place since day one, the generational conservative judges at different levels of the courts, the pro-life policies, the near total destruction of ISIS, the progress made with North Korea towards denuclearization (which he’s taking the Reagan approach of not taking bad deals just to make a deal), and the progress being made towards building a wall and securing our border (which they continue to try and fight against).
 
Trump has been doing a tremendous job as President of the United States. And we easily could add far more to the list of his accomplishments (even still, all of that was off the top of my head) if the Republican Party elites weren’t trying to sabotage him. Had Paul Ryan not been House Speaker or if he had not been a RINO, Obamacare would be a thing of the past, we’d be way farther in the efforts to build the wall, and the House would likely not be Democrat right now.
 
Trump’s been vastly successful as President despite the 92% negative media coverage, despite the Democrat Party constantly making up bullcrap about him, namely the Russian collusion witch hunt, and despite the Republican establishment being so adamantly against Trump they are basically showing themselves to really be Democrats.
 
If the Republican establishment weren’t such scum, there’s no doubt Trump’s approval rating would be considerably higher still.
 
And yet, despite everything going against him, Trump is still massively popular with the Republican base, particularly with conservatives.
 
85% of those who are “extremely interested in politics” also support Trump, while 81% of those over 65 and 81% of rural Republicans also support him. Unfortunately, there is less support from him coming from Millennials, though it’s still not bad at 62%, while those not really interested in politics support him 64%.
 
78% of Republican men and 75% of Republican women also support the President and want him re-elected. Trump is also most popular in Alabama, Wyoming and West Virginia, while least popular in Vermont, California and Massachusetts.
 
In a different poll, a Des Moines Register poll of 400 Iowa Republican voters, we also see that 82% view Trump favorably.
 
Overall, Trump is, unsurprisingly, polling really well with Republicans, particularly with what constitutes the vast majority of the Republican base: conservatives.
 
And this sort of thing really should also be a warning sign for Republican Congressmen and women to not vote against the MAGA agenda.
 
Of the 12 Republican Senators that voted against Trump’s National Emergency declaration, I really don’t like 11 of them. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not a bad guy at all in my eyes, but I do think he made a pretty bad mistake here.
 
Supposedly, the reasoning behind voting against Trump’s national emergency is due to some precedent it could set for future Democrat Presidents. That’s entirely bogus, considering Obama was running the country like a freaking king while the Republican Party largely sat around picking their noses. They sure as heck didn’t care about what precedent Obama and the Democrats were setting, ruling the country like a kingdom, but now, when the national emergency declaration is used for a GOOD THING, it’s bad precedent?
 
What a load of crap. And I imagine many fellow conservatives feel the same way. The executive power of the national emergency is there and has been there since 1976. But NOW, when it’s being used in its arguably best and purest form for the best reason imaginable, that of deterring an INVASION, all of a sudden it’s bad precedent.
 
I agree that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 might grant too much power to the executive. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be passed every single day; they wanted it to be very difficult to pass laws and I agree. But THIS is not the hill to die on to make that argument. THIS is the best possible reason for having this power.
 
Protecting the country is a President’s VERY JOB. And that is exactly what this national emergency declaration seeks to do.
 
While I did not intend to go on so much of a tangent regarding the national emergency declaration, it does still fit into my overall argument: those who call themselves “very conservative” aka the vast majority of the Republican base tremendously supports the President. It makes no sense for any Republican to be against THIS particular national emergency declaration as this is not abuse of power, but optimal and proper use of it.
 
If Republicans were so concerned about precedent, they should’ve voted to build a wall when THEY HAD THE CHANCE! Of course, they didn’t want a wall, which is why we’re here today, but still. Rand Paul wants a wall and wants to secure the border, just not this way. Well, unfortunately, there are no other options left.
 
We conservatives support Trump. Those who do not will find themselves on the wrong side of political history here.
 
Exodus 18:21
“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
 
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, a gunman (whose name I refuse to share) opened fire in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, leaving nearly 50 dead and over 40 injured in what is likely New Zealand’s deadliest shooting.
 
And while one can easily look at this shooting with the same lenses as other shootings, wherein a debate about gun control is sparked, one document from the shooter himself reveals the very plan and intentions he had upon committing this egregious act.
 
The shooter’s 74-page manifesto is… confusing, to say the least (probably because he might have meant it to be a massive troll to exploit the media’s worst habits, but it’s worth taking a look at). He calls himself a fascist and a socialist, says he’s for “environmentalism”, “worker’s rights” and “responsible markets” but also lambasts and attacks communists, Marxists, and Antifa as “anti-white scum”. And according to Breitbart News, “elsewhere, the shooter writes that ‘under some definitions’, he is both on the right and the left.”
 
The shooter also writes that “conservatism is dead, thank god” and calls it “corporatism in disguise”. He says that conservatives “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does”. “The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities.”
 
The shooter also seemingly trolls people in his manifesto, further telling me he meant for this manifesto to be shown to people, as he seemingly blames video games for his actions, saying “Spyro the Dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism” and “Fortnite trained me to be a killer.”
 
The shooter also trolls the readers by saying that conservative pundit Candace Owens, who is neither a white nationalist (she’s black) nor a supporter of violence, is the “person that has influenced me above all.” In a video he posted online (by the way, he used Facebook’s livestreaming service to shoot footage of a little bit of his shooting), he tells viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie”, the YouTube channel of a man named Felix Kjellberg who has the most subscribed-to account in YouTube, with nearly 90 million subscribers and someone who seldom dabbles in politics.
 
But beyond the contradicting ideologies he pertains to have and the classless attempt at linking high-profile people who have nothing to do with him (which, again, might both be trolling of some sort), perhaps the single biggest indicator that this s.o.b. is an evil jerk (as if killing 50 people and wounding 40 others wasn’t enough), he also states his intentions behind the shooting.
 
In the manifesto, he says that his intention is “to spark a civil war in the United States by triggering crackdowns on the Second Amendment,” according to Breitbart News. He says he intends this shooting to lead to “fracturing” the U.S. along “cultural and racial lines.”
 
He intends to “create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political, and racial divide within the United States… This conflict over the 2nd Amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will eventually result in a civil war that will Balkanize the U.S. along political, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.”
 
The shooter also predicts his attack will lead to “calls for the removal of gun rights from whites in the United States… that is the plan all along.” He also states that, while he could’ve used a variety of methods for carrying out his terrorist attack, he chose guns “for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world… With enough pressure the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. The attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines.”
 
All of this is what makes me think that, while much of this manifesto might be a troll to exploit the media, there might be some elements of truth to it.
 
Now, regardless of whatever ideology he says he has, whether he calls himself a fascist or a socialist while attacking communists and Marxists (which are all basically the same, but with slight differences), and while he appears to be a white supremacist all-the-while hoping white people in the U.S. will have their guns taken away from them, one thing is absolutely certain: his heart is nowhere near Christ.
 
The Left has already fallen for this guy’s trick of heavily politicizing this attack and may even see this as an opportunity to really move in on the 2nd Amendment (even though New Zealand’s gun laws are incredibly strict, so no new gun legislation enacted here would do anything either, not that the Left cares about that at all). So sadly enough, this poor excuse for a human being will likely be successful in further driving apart this country.
 
And it’s this precise desire (not to mention the fact that HE KILLED 50 PEOPLE AND WOUNDED 40 OTHERS) that tells me just how far his heart is from Christ. This is someone who literally wants to sow discord and chaos in the entire world.
 
While he does not like Muslims at all and calls them “invaders” on “foreign lands”, it’s clear to everyone who takes the time to even just skim the highlights of his manifesto that what drove him to do this was not mere Islamophobia.
 
He knew very well that a shooting in a mosque would horrify the Left far more than any other setting. I mean, New York and L.A. both upped security in mosques for a bit soon after the shooting took place. Now, I don’t blame them for having done it, it’s perfectly sensible. But when have you heard of them doing this when someone shot up a church?
 
Islam is the Left’s favorite religion, as evidenced by the fact that even in America’s deadliest shooting and what can only be considered to be a terrorist attack, the Orlando night club shooting, the Left was quick to not only blame the gun but also try and shift blame away from the shooter himself because he was Muslim. The media didn’t even dare try and call it a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, this shooter attacks two mosques and ABC News was quick to label it a terrorist attack.
 
There’s no doubt that it is, but the media and the Left will cover for Muslims more than anything else. The shooter likely knows this and that is likely the biggest reason for choosing them as his target.
 
As a result, the Left will likely be more willing to go after people’s guns so as to prevent something like this ever happening again (at least, that’s their story).
 
This attempt at gun grabbing, depending on how fierce it is, will definitely lead to an even bigger divide than what we already have.
 
Upon reading the highlights of the manifesto, particularly reading the parts about creating a divide and a fracture in America along cultural and racial lines, I can’t help but think the guy’s late for the party. Obama already did a pretty good job at dividing the nation along cultural and racial lines. We currently live in a society where being white is considered a bad thing and cause for discrimination, believing it to be some sort of justice for the centuries of white oppression over minorities (which were all largely caused by Democrats, but I digress).
 
This country is already heavily-divided along cultural, racial and political lines. In one corner, you have conservative right-wingers who love capitalism and see America as a beacon of hope, with liberty and justice for all. In the other corner, you have socialist left-wingers who love socialism/communism and see America not only as a mistake that never should’ve happened but as a threat to the progress of mankind and the planet itself.
 
These two corners are irreconcilable, in my mind. And to this shooter, it was easy enough to further fracture by committing this heinous act of terror and violence.
 
The ironic thing is that, upon literally writing these things down, he reveals his entire hand and it becomes easier to negate it… at least, in theory.
 
To sane people, they will read this over and think “okay, let’s just not politicize this and not have this guy get what he wanted, otherwise he’ll win.” But to the Left, they might see this (at least the ones who care enough to read it over) and they will think it’s the perfect opportunity to do just that.
 
After the Parkland shooting, many on the Left were up in arms (pun somewhat intended) about guns and a supposed lack of gun control in America (which likely wouldn’t have prevented this shooting anyway) and the divide further grew. Granted, part of the reason is that the FBI and Broward County Sheriff’s office basically ALLOWED for this shooting to happen in the first place, but the damage was done.
 
The Left shamelessly made that shooting to be their greatest asset. And they could do the same thing here. They won’t care that they’d be doing exactly what the shooter wants them to do. If they see an opportunity to strip freedoms and rights from people, they’ll take it.
 
I don’t know just how far they’ll go here, and I seriously doubt they’ll get anywhere near to abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but this does provide them with a stepping stone towards further growing their power.
 
Thankfully, the idiot shooter wrote this manifesto to tell us exactly what he planned and what kind of heartless monster he is (again, that’s without even mentioning the mere fact he slain around 50 people and wounded dozens of others). And yes, while I did establish that much of this was likely trolling the media, his racism and his intentions may be genuine. Certainly, division is what comes from this attack and he might know this as well. The fact that he acknowledges this will lead to division leads me to believe these intentions were real.
 
In any case, if the Left wishes to brand him as a right-winger, there is evidence against that. I wouldn’t necessarily brand him a left-winger either given what he wrote against the Left, but he’s definitely not a right-winger.
 
However, what I will brand him as is a heartless, Christ-less, evil man looking to exploit the racial divides in the world, taking up the mantle of a white supremacist (and he very well may be that anyway) and sowing discord with his evil actions.
 
I pray for the families of those slain and hope that the writing of this manifesto will lead to people realizing what he was doing and not seek to grant this sicko’s wishes.
 
Romans 12:21
“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
 
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.

Whenever I discussed gun control and the topic of Great Britain came up, I often times would point out their massive knife violence problem to suggest that bad people will do bad things regardless of tool and would often joke about the U.K. introducing “knife control” legislation to try and “combat” it, which would help about as much as gun control typically does.
 
But one British politician, Tory MP Scott Mann, made a suggestion on social media that the U.K. implement a knife registry like they do with guns and to plant GPS trackers on every knife.
 
Specifically, he wrote: “Every knife sold in the UK should have a gps tracker fitted in the handle. It’s time we had a national database like we do with guns. If you’re carrying it around you had better have a bloody good explanation, obvious exemptions for fishing, etc.”
 
While this is not exactly an official proposal, it is at least testing the waters to see if Parliament should go forward with something similar, but obviously with far greater detail.
 
But all this got was (much deserved) mockery.
 
One Twitter user wrote: “’There’s been a stabbing.’ ‘Quick, get me the GPS tracking for every knife in a 3 mile radius.’ ‘OK, it says there are 120,000 of them, mostly in kitchens.’ ‘Bollocks, thought we had them then.’ ‘Could ask those young lads with the machete.’ ‘Nah, they’ve got a mackerel, been fishing.’”
 
Another user wrote: “Have you got much in the way of a plan for how the police monitor the movement of the UK’s, let’s say 300 million knives?”
 
And this all barely gets into a fraction of the problems with this idea.
 
Shall I go over them quickly, since I’m fairly certain they will try and propose something like this at some point anyway and it’d be good to think over all the negatives, impossibilities and outright idiocies attached to such a plan?
 
Okay, then. I’ll do that. But where to begin? How about the fact that it’d be incredibly expensive and difficult to fit a GPS device into every single knife put into development from the moment the legislation passes?
 
Seriously, I don’t know how much it would cost to actually do that, but that sort of equipment is expensive and hard to mass produce for what I can only assume is a relatively conservative estimate of 300 million knives (considering the U.K.’s population sits at around 66 million and most people have a multitude of knives in their homes, I’d say that’s a very conservative estimate since each person would have to have roughly 4.5 knives and most people’s kitchens have A LOT more than that).
 
Another thing to consider is the fact that it’d be outright impossible to track every single one of these knives and even whether or not they are outside. The accuracy of these systems begins to dip farther than 5 meters or 16 feet. You would have to have an agent nearby surveilling particular knives to see if they are outside for any given reason, which makes it pretty much impossible to accurately track these things.
 
But perhaps the most laughable aspect of this entire thing is that, even if you did somehow find a way to pay for the implanting of GPS trackers in EVERY SINGLE KNIFE in the U.K. and could somehow track each one to an accurate degree, these GPS tracking systems are not likely to be dishwasher-safe and require batteries to operate. Meaning the person OWNING the knife would have to replace the battery of the GPS tracker in order for the tracker to work. And guess what people who don’t care about laws will prefer to do with a dying battery on a GPS tracker on what will be their desire weapon of choice?
 
So even if you somehow managed to climb over the massive hurdles relating to cost of both implanting GPS trackers into the knives and having enough man-power to track every single knife that winds up outside for any reason, the actual device would only be able to keep track of people who DON’T INTEND ON USING IT AS A MURDER WEAPON! If people are required by law to change the batteries in the systems, only THOSE WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW WILL DO IT.
 
And thus, we get right back on to the most important point anyone can make in a gun control or knife control argument: criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law.
 
As I have explained multiple times in the past, murder is already illegal. You are not allowed by law to kill your fellow human being unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in self-defense. And yet, people still do it. It’s not a problem with the law, but a problem with being unable to always enforce that law.
 
It is illegal to rape people, murder people, sell drugs to people, harass people, assault people, threaten people, etc. All are things that people do anyway because man is naturally evil.
 
So having a knife registry where you keep track of every knife via a GPS tracking system would AT BEST only keep track of law-abiding people AKA the people the government shouldn’t be targeting.
 
And that’s a best case scenario. Again, you would have to clear the nearly or actually impossible hurdles of 1) paying for the GPS tracking system in each and every single knife, 2) having the man-power to keep track of knives that somehow end up outside and 3) coming up with a way to not have the systems get destroyed upon the first wash.
 
And that’s all to amount to still not being able to stop knife crimes! Yeah, no, this is a great idea.
 
But this is ultimately what I’m trying to say: you can’t legislate evil. Evil will find ways to be evil. If evil wants to kill someone, they’ll find a way to do it. Take away evil’s gun, they’ll use a knife. Take away the knife, they’ll use blunt objects like baseball bats, pipes, and whatever they can get their hands on to inflict physical harm. Take away all of those things and they’ll use their fists. And as impossible as it is to take away people’s blunt objects (because just about anything can be a murder weapon from a baseball bat to a pen to even the very keyboard I’m writing on), you 100% cannot take away people’s fists to prevent them from hurting someone else.
 
The unfortunate truth of reality is that man is naturally evil and will often do evil deeds. You can’t enact these laws because these people don’t care about laws. You can try to enforce those laws, but that will never fully prevent anyone from doing something egregious. And most of the time, these laws end up hurting people more than helping them. Often times, when someone wants to legally buy a gun, they can run into trouble while the process is still going through. This sort of thing is especially the case if someone is trying to protect themselves from a dangerous and crazy ex or overall a stalker.
 
Something else to note is that people who intend to commit crimes with a gun will more often than not choose not to buy the gun legally. 
 
How often has a shooter used his parents’ or friend’s weapons to commit the egregious act? How do you counter that? Often times, no new gun laws proposed in the aftermath of a shooting would include something that could’ve prevented the shooting. Even Diane Feinstein, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, admitted that no new gun law that Congress was looking at would’ve prevented that massacre.
 
There are simply way too many factors in place surrounding the event of a shooting or a knife attack for legislation and government agents to be able to work out. Certainly spending an irresponsible amount of money to invest in a device that at best will only help to keep track of the very people you do not need to keep track of is no way to do it.
 
And don’t misunderstand, there are people in Parliament who are looking to see what they should or could do with something similar. That tweet wasn’t just a random thought; it was testing the waters. They think it’s a solid enough idea that would simply need to be better polished and better explained than in a 280-characters-or-less tweet.
 
The fact that something like this was even suggested by someone in the U.K. government tells you the level of stupidity that is in place. Even if he’s a rarity in the U.K. government (which I highly doubt), he certainly at least brings down the curve.
 
Job 11:12
“But a stupid man will get understanding when a wild donkey’s colt is born a man!”
 
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 articles that respond to something someone on the Daily Wire or other conservative websites write, but I felt it appropriate here. The reason being is that Joseph Curl (whom I should mention is a Never Trumper) says that Biden will run in 2020 and will become the 46th President of the United States.
 
Curl notes that the entire Democrat field currently running is essentially shooting themselves on both feet repeatedly and Biden will likely jump in a little later on when sufficient damage has been made to all of them.
 
He notes that Biden will find himself in an easy race against Trump, being from Pennsylvania himself, so that will likely flip in his favor (Pennsylvania is a state that Trump won in 2016) and will likely win other states that carried Trump in 2016.
 
Curl also notes that Biden is not going to run as part of the far-Left movement, but more as a center-field candidate imploring people to not get too crazy with things. But most importantly to him, he believes Biden will win because “he’s a relatively normal person. He’s calm, thoughtful, even tempered, reasonable – heck, he’s downright folksy.”
 
Essentially, Biden is meant to be the one voice of reason in a sea of craziness from the far-Left and from Trump (again, Curl is a Never Trumper).
 
And Curl also makes the case that Trump, while he’s holding steady in the 50% approval rating in many states, he’s under 40% in states that carry big electoral votes. Quoting Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel: “Not only is [Trump] now underwater in the three states that pushed him to victory in 2016 – he’s now unexpectedly vulnerable in places such as Texas, Florida, and Ohio as well. His popularity rises to 50 percent or higher in states that total a mere 102 electoral votes. Probably of more concern to his campaign: He’s fallen below 40 percent approval in states encompassing a 201-electoral-vote bloc.”
 
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that no poll is actually mentioned here. And polls vary wildly. Rasmussen tends to hold Trump around 50% at least recently, while MSNBC and other polls have him in the low 40’s. FiveThirtyEight has Trump’s approval rating at just 41.8%, RealClearPolitics has him around 43% (worth noting they also take the averages from other polls and take the average of all of them to make into their own polling, so the information can certainly be a little dodgy), Gallup’s most recent poll has him at 43% (mid-February, at least), etc.
 
So many polls, particularly if run by MSM, will hold him lower than I truly think it is or what other, typically-reliable sources will hold him at.
 
But getting back to Curl’s article, and the biggest point I want to make in my own, is the simple fact that there’s no way the Democrat Party is going to let Biden be their nominee, particularly for the very reasons Curl claims he will win in 2020.
 
There’s good reason around 20 Democrats have jumped at the chance to run for President (aside from the fact they’ve convinced themselves Trump is an easy win just like last time). They see socialism as their future. The former DNC Chair, Keith Ellison, named AOC “the future of the party”. They are convinced that they have a prime opportunity to run on socialism and are convinced they will win this way.
 
Joe Biden, as Curl notes, will likely try to run as a moderate candidate. A Democrat, no doubt, but nowhere near as insane as everyone else. And that’s exactly the reason he won’t be the nominee.
 
Taking aside the fact that many on the Democrat base don’t want Joe Biden because he’s “too old” or “too white” or “too male”, he’s nowhere near Leftist enough in their eyes. He’s too moderate. But beyond everything else, he represents a sort of regression in the Democrat Party. They don’t want to go back to pretending to be moderates or reasonable. They’ve fully embraced their masks coming loose and are fully embracing socialism. Some of their biggest stars are socialists. They’re not going to turn their backs on such a future for a candidate who is no longer the future of the party.
 
And it’s not like they feel Biden is owed anything. He was already Vice President and while he’s run in the past, he’s not considered Democrat Party royalty like Hillary was. The Democrat Party turned their backs on her in 2007 by going for Obama. In 2015, they sought to crown her as their nominee, feeling she was owed something (and Hillary herself felt owed). But the Party does not feel like they owe Biden anything. They like him, no doubt, but they are not going to crown him.
 
Far from it, they will likely try to sink him. Again, he is not a socialist in their minds. He’s not a radical. They don’t want a “voice of reason” (and I find it hard to believe Biden would provide that anyway). Again, they feel the opportunity is primed for running with a hardcore Leftist socialist in 2020. It’s for that reason that I think they will lose, but it’s for that reason that they think they will win.
 
Now, let’s look again at what Curl said of Biden. He’s “a relatively normal person… calm, thoughtful, even tempered, reasonable… downright folksy.”
 
Well, let’s look over this with some things even Curl notes about Biden. Biden is notorious for saying some downright stupid and frankly racist things.
 
Let’s not forget he tried to scare black people by saying Republicans were going to put “y’all back in chains”, saying that in a rather “ghetto” or stereotypical “black” accent. Let’s not forget he said of Obama that he’s “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”
 
Let’s not forget he said: “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent… I’m not joking.”
 
Let’s not forget the MULTIPLE instances of him getting a little too cozy with women and even young girls, earning him the nickname of “Creepy Joe”.
 
And beyond all of that, he is easy to manipulate. Remember when he dared say that Mike Pence was a decent guy and Cynthia Nixon and others basically shamed him into saying that he is a deplorable human being? Remember how easily he succumbed to the backlash, taking away the very mild compliment of saying Pence is a decent guy?
 
Look, in all honesty, I do think Biden is a far better option from every other Democrat. But when you consider the fact that he’ll likely take a socialist as his running mate (Curl certainly thinks he’ll take Beto or Julian Castro), and would most likely be a puppet for the Obamas, there’s no way in Hell I’d consider voting for him.
 
Not that this matters anyway for a number of reasons.
 
First, like I said, he’s not going to be the Democrat Party nominee. Precisely because he’s going to run as the center option, the Democrat Party won’t allow him to become their nominee. They want full-on socialism as fast as possible and will see Biden as a step backwards, not forwards. And if Biden does bite the bullet and start spewing socialist nonsense, the only appeal he had even in Curl’s eyes will be gone. If Trump makes this campaign about defining the Left as socialists like the Nazis and the Soviets, he will steamroll them.
 
Second, we are still a little less than two years away from the election. Nothing Trump says or does now will likely cost him or win him 2020. What will matter the most to people is the wall getting built, which will likely make tremendous progress by the time the general election starts, and how well the economy is doing.
 
He may have lost people like Ann Coulter, whom I’ll give credit as having been one of the first pro-Trump people out there, but she’s no big loss, particularly when you consider the fact she attacked Trump after he held a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer and she tweeted: “Put a fork in Trump, he’s dead” and “At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached.”
 
She tweeted that after Trump softened his position on DACA (not that he has much of a choice with the 9th Circuit basically forcing him to keep the unconstitutional act alive). And like I said in the article where I first mentioned those tweets, she’s not really a supporter of Trump, but someone who’s just trying to get attention and clicks, particularly if she herself was ready to try and impeach Trump over this (and even if it was a joke, it was hardly a good one with little sense attached to it).
 
So losing someone who’s legitimately an air-head is not exactly a big loss for Trump.
 
Look, I’m not saying it’s a guarantee that Trump will win. He himself has to not make mistakes. But considering that the Democrat Party foolishly believes they can take down Trump with a socialist candidate, they will do a lot of work in his favor.
 
I can’t outright guarantee that Biden will 100% not be the nominee, but there is no reason the Democrat Party, with their current beliefs and where they think they should be going, will allow Joe to be their nominee.
 
Who knows, maybe I’ll be wrong, but all reason points to the Democrats not recognizing that Biden really is their best chance at beating Trump. Not that I think he would even if he was the nominee, but it certainly would be more of a battle for Trump than it would be were he to face any other Democrat.
 
John 16:33
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”
 
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.

Do you want to see what a world without fossil fuels would look like? Look no further than the current state of Venezuela, where they are currently experiencing the longest recorded blackout for a developed nation.
 
Even the New York Times, despite the Venezuelan government’s constant promise that everything is okay and the power will return soon, reports that there’s “no end in sight”. This is mainly due to the fact that Maduro does not seem to have a plan for restoring power aside from trying to restart the Guri hydroelectric plant, which every attempt leads to something else breaking and the problem only getting worse, but the regime does not even seem to be trying to accumulate the resources to restore power in the first place.
 
The NYT reports: “Sporadic looting and spontaneous protests. Desperate patients begging doctors to be kept alive. Residents bracing for wider attacks on markets and restaurants after the sun goes down…”
 
They also report that no one knows exactly what caused the blackout in the first place, but sabotage has been ruled out.
 
Like I said, the Maduro regime has been trying to restart the Guri hydroelectric plant, but every attempt leads them to an even worse situation than the one they went into.
 
“After analyzing power levels across the country, Mr. Aguilar, who consults reinsurance companies on Venezuela’s power sector, said the government has tried to restart Guri four times since the start of the blackout on Thursday. The latest attempt led to the explosion of a secondary substation near Guri on Saturday. ‘Every time they attempt to restart, they fail and the disruption breaks something else in the system, destabilizing the grid yet further,’ said Mr. Aguilar. ‘Obviously, they are hiding something from us,’ he said of the government,” reported the NYT.
 
Sky News also reported on the blackout, reporting of the markets with rotting food, people looking for hot spots where they can get a signal on their phones and long lines of people waiting outside of stores merely hoping they will open eventually.
 
And this is on top of the fact that the hyperinflation in the country makes it so that people hardly have any money to buy anything. The Venezuelan currency is so garbage that people are accepting American dollars and Euros in exchange for the scarce and now worsening products.
 
And that’s just those lucky enough to not be in the hospital.
 
“Venezuela’s hospitals, already struggling with shortages of supplies and equipment amid an economic meltdown, entered crisis mode on Thursday when the South American nation’s power system went down,” reported Reuters.
 
“Public hospitals typically have generators to provide back-up electricity in the event of an outage, but doctors consulted by Reuters said they were either damaged or idled for lack of fuel. Julio Castro of the non-governmental organization Doctors for Health says the blackouts have stretched Venezuelan hospitals to the breaking point. The group says at least 21 people have died in public hospitals during the outage.”
 
By the way, as a little side note, you know your country has some serious health problems if there’s an organization called “Doctors for Health” as though they would be for anything else. It’s like having an organization called “Mechanics for Car Repairs”.
 
The situation in Venezuela was already pretty horrible just by the fact that socialism has been so well and faithfully implemented. Again, hospitals were already struggling before. Markets hardly had anything before. People barely had money before. But all of this is turned up to 11 when a nationwide blackout, what is essentially considered a national disaster, occurs.
 
Venezuela does not have the infrastructure to sustain such a national disaster. And we can very clearly see just what it would be like to live in a world without fossil fuels: hospitals have no power, looters have a better chance to loot, food markets have heavily-shortened expiration dates for their foods without refrigeration, communications services are rendered almost completely useless and overall a bad situation gets worse.
 
It’s that last point, the one about services being made useless, that I think can really reach a younger audience who seems to be allured by the Green New Deal and socialism altogether. As such, allow me to reach younger audiences with language that they are sure to understand: no fossil fuels means no memes. It means no anime services functioning, no Fortnite servers running (or any online game for that matter), no Twitter to go online to complain, no Instagram to post selfies in the dark, no Netflix to binge watch shows, no YouTube to watch Pewdiepie... you get the idea.
 
What we are currently seeing in Venezuela (and I will share the video from Sky News down below) is a country that has effectively regressed to the Middle Ages, only with cars that will eventually no longer be able to run because there’s no fuel, depending on how long this blackout lasts and whether or not other countries bring some fuel of their own (and yes, I know very well that Venezuela is rich in oil, but without power, they can’t dig into their own supplies).
 
It’s a society that has been forced to live how we tend to picture the Soviets having lived under communism. But even then, the Soviets at least had fuel and zero damns to give about the environment.
 
It was already hard enough to live under socialism in Venezuela, but it’s now even harder due to this blackout. This tells me Venezuela was certainly not prepared at all to withstand something like this. Before socialism, I have no doubt in my mind they’d be able to withstand it. Of course, during a blackout, food would still begin going bad without refrigeration and many other things would go down too, but the system in place would be better prepared to handle it.
 
But since Venezuela was a hot mess even without a blackout, such an event puts the entire country on its knees… except maybe for Maduro, since he probably still lives at least relatively comfortably.
 
This is a nightmarish situation for the people of Venezuela. And it’s yet another reminder of just why so many people choose to escape from socialism/communism and flee to the United States. When we have blackouts here, they usually get taken care of pretty quickly, at least within a day or two at most, and it certainly does not make international news. Granted, part of it is the fact that the United States is really big and there are different power grids in different areas powered by different things (California’s windmills come to mind as a difference between them and other States) so there’s almost no chance that there will be a nationwide blackout, but still.
 
This blackout has forced Venezuela into the Middle Ages. That tells you just how bad the situation there was if this is all it took to do that.
 
This is yet another lesson to stay as far away as possible from socialism. Its system really does not allow for major disasters to be relieved relatively easily.
 
2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
 
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.

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump visited Alabama to pay his respects and give support for the families and communities devastated by massive tornadoes that killed 23 people. During his visit, some young kids asked the President if he would sign their Bibles.
 
And because he did, the Left is freaking out about it (which can really be a slogan for Trump in 2020: “Because Trump did it, the Left is freaking out”. It could cover literally anything he ever does).
 
Joe Biden’s former chief of staff, Ron Klain, tweeted: “He signed bibles with the same hand he used – as President – to sign hush money checks to an adult film star.”
 
Peter Daou, former adviser to Hillary Clinton wrote: “Donald J. Trump is signing Bibles. The man whose vicious and inhumane border policy violates the fundamental teachings of Jesus is signing Bibles.”
 
Reverend Al Sharpton (and I honestly forgot he was a reverend before this, considering his outright constant anti-Christian behavior) tweeted: “Donald Trump traveled to AL this past Friday to comfort those who had been devastated by a recent tornado that killed 23 people. During the trip, Trump was asked to sign some Bibles… I suggest that he takes some time to READ the Bible…”
 
And others on Twitter shared the same sentiment: “Imagine being a Christian and having Trump of all people sign your bible. NOBODY should be signing the word of God… Is this the end times? Lol,” wrote one Twitter user.
 
“Why did Trump sign Bibles for Christians?! He is not the author of the Bible. Matter of fact, he is what the Bible tells you not to be. Notice how he signed them on the cover. Trump still has never opened one. Trump autographing bibles is like Hannibal Lecter signing cookbooks,” wrote another user who also shared a picture of the Bibles he signed with the caption: “When the man who embodies all 7 deadly sins – lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride – is signing bibles it means that it is time to reevaluate your religion.”
 
I will get to absolutely obliterating all of these people’s arguments in a moment, but first, let me share with you some other tweets from actually sane and not hypocritical people:
 
“Note to all the people ridiculing evangelicals for asking Trump to sign their bibles: Martin Luther King’s family asked President Obama to sign MLK’s bible. And Obama did,” wrote one Matthew Schmitz.
 
A group called Students for Trump tweeted: “Truman signs a Bible: *crickets*. Carter signs a Bible: *crickets*. Clinton signs a Bible: *crickets*. Gore signs a Bible: *crickets*. Trump signs a Bible: *HYSTERIA*.”
 
It’s also worth mentioning that Bush, Reagan and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts have all also signed Bibles.
 
So to the person saying that Trump shouldn’t sign a bible because he’s not the author, what would he say to anyone else who signs Bibles? Or what would he say if someone famous signed something they really had nothing to do with, because that sort of thing happens pretty often?
 
Someone signing something does not symbolize that person therefore having been responsible for that something. If you had given Stan Lee a comic book about Superman and he signed it, that does not mean he is responsible for the creation of Superman.
 
Now, let’s address some of the tweets from the Left regarding this. Ron Klain is trying to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Trump signing a bible with the same hand he used to supposedly sign hush money payments for Stormy Daniels. Yeah, because we all know that once someone commits a sin, they are irredeemable.
 
We all know the story of Moses, who killed an Egyptian guard, was on the lam for 40 years, God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush, told him that he messed up and left him to cry over it.
 
We all know the story of Abraham, who was so impatient for God’s promise to come to pass that he slept with his wife’s servant, bearing a child with her and God decided he messed up and didn’t give him another child, leaving Abraham and his tribe to suffer in their sin.
 
We all know the story of David, who used his kingly power to sleep with one of his most loyal soldiers’ wife, got her pregnant, sent said soldier off to die in battle, was removed from power and made to suffer forevermore in his sin because God would not forgive him even after he acknowledged his sins and repented of them.
 
We all know the story of Saul of Tarsus, who so hated Christians that he would use the power of the Roman Empire to hunt down and kill said Christians until Jesus Himself appeared to him, asking him why he was persecuting Him, made him blind and left him to rot forever as a sinner.
 
Time and time again, story after story, we see a recurring theme: man is sinful. But that’s not the end of the story. God did not abandon Abraham even after he sinned. He did not abandon Moses after he sinned. He did not abandon David after he sinned. He did not abandon Saul after he repeatedly sinned. Their faith in the Lord is what ultimately saved them.
 
The point of the Bible is that, while we are yet sinners and by our own abilities can never hope to be anything other than sinners, we are saved by the Grace of the Lord through our faith in Him. That’s as true in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. Saving Grace is what saved those living under the Old Testament and it’s what saves those who live under the New Testament.
 
Regardless of what Trump has done (and the only reports seem to be from Leftist sources, so you know how reliable those are), there’s no doubt that he is, indeed, a sinner. At heart, he’s a sinner because he is as human as you and I. But if he has repented, bowed his head down in reverence of Christ and asked for forgiveness of his sins, he has been forgiven.
 
Now, let’s go over those tweets once more. I already covered Ron Klain and the Twitter user who said he shouldn’t sign bibles because he is not the author, etc.
 
Let’s cover Peter Daou’s tweet about Trump signing bibles in spite of his “vicious and inhumane border policies”. Well, there are a number of things I can say about this.
 
First, what vicious and inhumane border policies? You mean the ones that Obama enacted and the media conveniently ignored until Trump took power and those policies remained? You mean the ones where we separate children from traffickers who seek to use those children to enter the country? You mean the ones where we separate those children from drug mules? From sex traffickers? How exactly is it humane to leave them with those people? If that is your definition of humane, you need some serious help.
 
Second, Obama and Clinton have both signed bibles. Despite the fact that they are both pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro- just about everything the Bible warns against, they both have signed bibles. Why is it not a problem when they do it? They both come far closer to being the anti-Christ than Trump does. And I would be very shocked if either of them, let alone both of them, have repented of their sins.
 
Now, let’s look at what Sharpton said. He suggested that Trump read the Bible. Does Sharpton read the Bible himself? What does Romans 16:17-18 say?
 
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
 
Read that, then read what Sharpton has said in the past and tell me he’s not an egregious hypocrite.
 
Lastly, we return to the guy who said Trump’s not the author of the Bible, so he shouldn’t be signing it. Remember that he also shared a picture that showed two Bibles Trump signed with the caption: “When the man who embodies all 7 deadly sins… is signing bibles it means that it is time to reevaluate your religion.”
 
For which I would refer you back to what I said earlier about man being sinful by nature and being redeemed by Christ.
 
No, we will not reevaluate our religion because our religion teaches us the Saving Grace of Christ at the cross. Who among us hasn’t occasionally been tempted or even committed one of these deadly sins? I know what I’ve struggled with regarding these sins and I have begged for forgiveness from the only source that can give me that: Jesus.
 
And as far as the 7 deadly sins go, I can realistically count only one or two of those sins that I could think Trump would really do: lust and pride. When it comes to lust, this is assuming that he did actually sleep with Stormy Daniels, which may or may not have actually happened. When it comes to pride, I’d say it’s mostly his boasting about his business ventures, etc. on the campaign trail and elsewhere.
 
But here’s the thing about the 7 deadly sins: they are deadly when they get to the point where they violate the first commandment: thou shall have no other God before me.
 
When your lust is so massive that you prefer to sleep around than worship God, you are effectively worshipping the flesh. When your gluttony is so great that you prefer to eat as much as possible instead of worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping what is supposed to be beneath man in the Creation. When your greed is so great that you seek to make as much money as possible instead of praising God for allowing you to do this and instead of worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping money. When your laziness is so grand that it keeps you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping laziness. When your wrath is so overwhelming that it keeps you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping violence. When your envy is keeping you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping that which you wish to have. When your pride is so massive that it keeps you from worshipping God, you are effectively worshipping yourself.
 
Only worshipping God, and His Son Jesus Christ, is what saves us. Only having God, and His Son Jesus Christ, in our hearts is what saves us. Putting in place things which are not God is what dooms us. It’s precisely for that reason that that was God’s FIRST commandment.
 
If Trump has God, has Christ, in his heart, he has been forgiven of all of his sins. Even if that post was right – that he indeed was the embodiment of all 7 deadly sins (he’s not) – as long as he has repented of his sins and Christ is in his heart, he has been forgiven.
 
But I can tell you many of these people have not been forgiven. Christ does not reside in them.
 
This especially goes for Al Sharpton, who though he says is a Reverend and may actually be a Reverend, is far from a Christian, particularly when taking into consideration what Matthew 15:8 says: “These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.”
 
Sharpton says he’s a Christian but I have not seen anything close to Christian behavior on his part.
 
Overall, I am not at all upset over Trump signing bibles. Particularly considering that he was asked by people, starting with some young kids, to do so. It’s not like he actively sought to put his name on them. What was he supposed to do? Decline a young kid who likes the President and loves Jesus?
 
Personally, I would not have asked him to sign my Bible because I’d rather keep my thoughts on the Lord whenever I see or read my Bible, but that’s just me. I don’t think it’s anywhere near this big of a deal for a CHRISTIAN President to be signing Bibles when he’s asked to. It certainly wasn’t to these people when atheist Presidents or supposedly Christian presidents signed them.
 
Proverbs 6:16-19
“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.”
 
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.

As was to be expected, the fallout from Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments and the Democrat Party refusing to admit that she is anti-Semitic has not yet subsided, but one particularly idiotic Leftist has the worst take I’ve seen so far about this whole thing: that Christians are the real anti-Semites.
 
Of course, the moron I’m talking about is Young Turks host Cenk Uygur, who tweeted: “You know what’s REAL anti-semitism? Right-wing Evangelical Christians supporting Israel because they think it will bring about the End Times where all of the Jews die. Worst anti-Semitism in the world!”
 
You know how I often read something someone says or tweets and I say how I am so ready to have my fun with them? Well, none of those instances compare with how much havoc I am about to rain down on this idiot.
 
But before I begin, allow me to show you some of the things other Twitter users have written in response to this guy:
 
“And there ya go… I was waiting to see who the first hateful moron was gonna be to make this argument,” wrote one Mr. Larry O’Connor.
 
“You named your show after the people that were responsible for the Armenian genocide. Shut your mouth, jackass,” said Arthur Schwartz (and a bit of a spoiler for later down this article: I will get back to that topic of the Armenian genocide momentarily).
 
“Many Christians are of Jewish ethnicity and ancestry. Jesus and ALL the apostles were Jewish. Nearly all of the early Christians were Jewish. Why would Christians wish death on brethren? This couldn’t be a more moronic tweet but I’m sure he will surprise me,” wrote Chris Loesch, husband of NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch.
 
“As a Jew, I am grateful every day for my Evangelical Christian friends who support our shared history and *defend* the Jewish people and our right to our homeland. Without their support there would be no one else on Earth standing by us as genocidal masses relentlessly attack,” wrote Chad Felix Greene.
 
“Buffoonery. He’s going to tell us what the ‘worst anti-Semitism in the world’ is? I’ll tell you what the worst anti-Semitism is: the one that used anti-Semitic tropes to systematically murder six million Jews. THAT, Cenk Uygur is the WORST. Don’t dare speak again for Jews!” said a Mr. Dov Hikind.
 
Now, I promised you earlier just what exactly my take was regarding this whole thing and I promised you a scathing analysis and dissection of this idiotic rhetoric, so here it is.
 
Do you want to know what real anti-Semitism is? The kind that Dov just mentioned: the one where an aggressively anti-Semitic socialist captured, imprisoned and killed 6 million Jews.
 
Do you want to know what real anti-Semitism is? Iran constantly declaring and swearing they will wipe Israel off the map. It’s Hamas committing jihad against the Jews on a daily basis at Israel’s border in the Gaza strip.
 
It’s Syria and other nations constantly launching missiles at Israel in the hopes of killing as many Jews as possible and weaken the nation’s resolve. It’s Ilhan Omar accusing politicians of dual loyalties to Israel and only supporting Israel for the money. It’s people claiming, without proof or reason, that Israel is “occupying” the land on which they reside – the land that was PROMISED TO THEM BY GOD!
 
Not that I expect this idiot to recognize what anti-Semitism is when his entire show is named after a revolutionary group in the early 20th century that led to the slaughter of 1.5 million Christian Armenians.
 
In case you do not know what the Armenian genocide is because the education system is so corrupt that any historical event that victimizes Christians must not be covered so as to maintain the narrative that Christians are oppressors, allow me to give you a relatively short history lesson about the entire thing.
 
Armenia was an independent nation for a decent amount of time, even becoming the first nation in the world to make Christianity its official religion in the 4th century A.D. However, the Armenian people often were ruled by an entirely different nation, or empire, as was more commonly considered at the time. During the 15th century, Armenia became part of the Ottoman Empire.
 
To no one’s surprise, the Ottoman Empire was largely led by Muslims who would often treat the typically-Christian Armenians like less than second-class citizens. Christians had to pay higher taxes and were subjected to very restrictive and minimal political and overall legal rights.
 
Interestingly enough, despite their hardships, Armenians actually thrived anyway. They were typically better educated and were wealthier than the rest of the Empire, particularly their Turkish neighbors, who grew resentment of them because of their success.
 
So when the Ottoman Empire crumbled by the end of the 19th century when Turkish Sultan Abdul Hamid II was dethroned, a revolutionary group called the Young Turks sought to reform Turkey into a more modern constitutional monarchy. The Armenians saw this as a sign of better things to come, but in fact, the opposite occurred.
 
The Young Turks sought to “Turkify” the once mighty Empire, which meant that any non-Turks, including and especially counting Christian non-Turks, were seen as a threat to their vision.
 
The beginning of World War I didn’t help the Armenians at all either. Turkey entered the Great War on the side of the Germans and Austro-Hungarians (you know, the baddies?). Turkish military leaders, according to History.com, argued that “the Armenians were traitors: If they thought they could win independence if the Allies were victorious, this argument went, the Armenians would be eager to fight for the enemy.”
 
Which wasn’t inaccurate. The Armenians organized battalions that would help the Russians fighting the Turks. But then again, can you blame them for wanting to fight for Turkey’s enemies when Turkey and the Ottoman Empire both subjected the Armenians to horrible social justice laws (and the actual social justice, not the actual insanity of the Left today) and made the Armenians out to be scum of the earth and literal infidels?
 
But in any case, we move on to the day the genocide is widely known to have begun: April 24th, 1915. On that day, the Turkish government “arrested and executed several hundred Armenian intellectuals,” according to History.
 
“After that, ordinary Armenians were turned out of their homes and sent on death marches through the Mesopotamian desert without food or water. Frequently, the marchers were stripped naked and forced to walk under the scorching sun until they dropped dead. People who stopped to rest were shot. At the same time, the Young Turks created a ‘Special Organization,’ which in turn organized ‘killing squads’ or ‘butcher battalions’ to carry out, as one officer put it, ‘the liquidation of the Christian elements.’”
 
“These killing squads were often made up of murderers and other ex-convicts. They drowned people in rivers, threw them off cliffs, crucified them and burned them alive. In short order, the Turkish countryside was littered with Armenian corpses. Records show that during this ‘Turkification’ campaign, government squads also kidnapped children, converted them to Islam and gave them to Turkish families. In some places, they raped women and forced them to join Turkish ‘harems’ or serve as slaves. Muslim families moved into the homes of deported Armenians and seized their property.”
 
Reports say that there were about 2 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire at the time of the massacre, and in 1922, when the genocide was over, around 388,000 Armenians remained. That’s roughly north of 1.5 million Christian Armenians massacred by the Young Turks.
 
And what does Cenk name his show after? The very entity that was responsible for that genocide.
 
Imagine someone creating a show named after Nazi Germany. It’s about as bad as that.
 
So why am I not surprised at the sort of animosity Cenk shows with regard to Evangelical Christians? After all, he named his show after the group responsible for the massacre of over a million of us.
 
Do you want to know what is real bigotry? That. Precisely that. Trying to say that Christians are the real anti-Semites because our support of Israel is as strong as it is because of the prophecy of the End Times as detailed in the book of Revelations.
 
Yes, we Christians believe that Israel must solely belong to the Jewish people for the End Times prophecy to be fulfilled. But let me remind you of something about God: HE GETS TO DECIDE WHO GETS INTO HIS KINGDOM!
 
It’s not rare for a Jewish person to convert to Christianity. Those that do will be saved while those who do not will, unfortunately, perish. That’s applicable to LITERALLY EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LIVED, CURRENTLY LIVES, AND WILL EVER LIVE IN THE FUTURE.
 
By saying that the “only” reason Christians support Israel is because of the End Times prophecy that will not include anyone who has not been saved by Christ, he is not only attacking Christians but GOD HIMSELF.
 
It’s no different from someone on Facebook whining at you that “if God really was as merciful or loving as you say He is, He would just let anyone into Heaven no matter what” which is a gross insult to the character of God and an incredibly asinine argument made by someone who truly has no idea what they are talking about (and I speak from experience having actually encountered someone like this on Facebook long ago).
 
The Jewish people are God’s chosen people. The land of Israel belongs squarely to them. But those who have converted and will convert to Christianity, recognizing the deity of Jesus Christ, who is Lord, to them belongs the Kingdom of God.
 
That, by no means, does it mean we Christians are in any shape manner or form at odds with Judaism. Matter of fact Jesus Himself was Jewish as He also worshipped the same exact God as the Jews. God the Son worshipped, in the flesh, God the Father, who is also the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of David and of all of Israel. And the twelve apostles were ALL Jewish themselves, including Paul, who did not become an apostle until after Christ’s death at the cross, when he would persecute and execute Christians.
 
There is a reason we call ours a “Judeo-Christian” culture because the two share similar tenets. Christians believe everything the Jews do up to the point where Christ is involved. We worship the same exact God, albeit under typically (but not always) different laws and rituals. Christians find their roots in Judaism. As such, we are allies for as long as the world is here. Jews gave us the law.
 
It’s absolutely ridiculous to insist that someone SUPPORTING Israel is anti-Semitic because of End Times prophecies where GOD GETS TO DECIDE WHAT’S WHAT!
 
REAL anti-Semitism, as I covered earlier, is what Hitler did, what Ilhan Omar continually does, what Iran continually does, what the Democrat Party is slowly coming to accept and everything that has to do with the systemic destruction or oppression of the Jewish people.
 
And a REAL bigot is someone who names their show after the radical Islamic group that was solely responsible for one of the worst genocides in world history.
 
Again, I’m not surprised at all at Cenk’s hatred of Christians. He essentially supports an act that sought to eradicate them from a nation entirely.
 
But let me tell you something else: God is not one to delight in His children’s suffering. To those whom He’ll have mercy, He’ll have mercy. To those whom He’ll execute justice, He will execute justice.
 
Genesis 12:3
“I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through 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 don’t honestly know how often I’ve pointed out the fact that the American Left is far closer to the Nazis than they claim Trump or Republicans are. Time and time again, the Left tries to paint Trump as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis. Time and time again, I tell and show people just why the Left is far closer to the Nazis than they can even claim Trump or Republicans are.
 
However, there were always two major distinctions that I would make between the Nazi Party and the modern day Democrat Party.
 
Those distinctions were 1) that they are globalists, not nationalists like the Nazis were (which isn’t to the detriment of anyone that is a nationalist. Nationalism is really just another word for patriotism and favoring your country ahead of others) and 2) that the Democrats were not really anti-Semitic.
 
But in recent time, it’s become clear to me that they are quickly and steadfastly removing that major aspect that differentiated them from the Nazis.
 
Of course, I am talking about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) repeated use of anti-Semitic troupes to even accuse fellow Democrats of dual loyalties to Israel (and this is without mentioning her accusation that those who support Israel only do it for the money, stereotyping that Jews are greedy capitalists, which is one of the main reasons Hitler, a socialist, hated the Jews).
 
But those comments alone aren’t what makes me believe the Left is moving closer towards what the Nazis were. The acts of an individual do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of a group.
 
No, what makes me think the Left is moving closer towards Nazism (or Glozism, since they are globalists… yeah, not as catchy, I know) is the fact that the far-Left in the Democrat Party (which is most of them) is forcing the Democrats to not condemn Omar’s comments as anti-Semitism and instead have moved towards simply making a resolution that would condemn ALL hate, not just anti-Semitism.
 
But that’s not all. What further makes me think the Left is going the way of the Nazis and their own anti-Semitism is the fact that the Party’s top candidates are refusing to condemn her anti-Semitism and instead opt to also condemn “all” hate, while pretending Omar’s own hatred is really nothing more than criticism about Israel.
 
It’s not. Accusing pro-Israel lawmakers of having dual loyalties and taking “the Benjamins” in their support of Israel is NOT condemnation of Israel.
 
And yet, that’s what the Left wants to pretend it is.
 
Bernie Sanders said this in his statement:
 
“Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace. What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. It’s wrong.”
 
Need I remind you that Bernie is Jewish? Even he is trying to say that VERY OBVIOUS ANTI-SEMITISM is nothing more than harmless criticism of Israel.
 
And to be honest, this is one of the most tame statements that I saw. Kamala Harris released a statement condemning all hate, also making sure to castigate Americans for seeing “a spike in hate crimes in America” (which is rich considering the fact that one of the most notorious hate crimes in recent time was a hoax perpetrated by a Leftist who wanted to blame conservatives, and THAT is the closest thing to a hate crime in that entire debacle, but of course, no one gives a crap about that).
 
And Elizabeth Warren flat-out said that “threats of violence – like those made against Rep. Omar – are never acceptable.” What threats of violence? Criticism of her is a “threat of violence”?
 
I legit have not heard any threats of violence made against her (only that she claims there have been, but has presented no proof).
 
So let me get this straight: the Democrat Party was planning on voting on a resolution that would condemn anti-Semitism, not even necessarily singling out Omar, but the far-Left fringe in the Party, which has a lot of control over it, decided to backtrack on all of it and simply make the general resolution of condemning all hate, even though the topic of conversation is largely repeated anti-Semitism by a Democrat.
 
If a Republican were to do this, do you think they would try and backpedal and include all hate in general? No, they would try and destroy that person and try to say that he represents EVERYONE in the Republican Party.
 
But when it’s a rising star in the Democrat Party, they have to backpedal and say it’s not anti-Semitism and that we should condemn all hate, not just anti-Semitism.
 
And before anyone challenges me by saying “well, you guys would say ‘All Lives Matter’ when the topic of conversation was black people getting killed by cops, so how is it any different having Democrats including all hate?”
 
To which I would say 1) those people were killed by cops, unfortunately, because they themselves were criminals. Of course, that’s not an excuse for killing someone, but if that person presents a legitimate threat to a police officer’s life, then what do you expect them to do? And yes, I know of plenty of times when someone was simply carrying a cell phone that was thought of as a gun and drastic action was taken. In those cases, blame can definitely fall on cops a decent bit. But for the most part, cops sometimes (repeat SOMETIMES) have to take drastic action, which unfortunately sometimes means the death of the criminal.
 
2) We say “All Lives Matter” not to backpedal anything or diminish the unfortunate circumstance of a specific event. But “Black Lives Matter” makes it sound like only black lives matter or they matter more than white lives or Hispanic lives or cop lives. And the way most Leftists in that movement act when it comes to cops only further proves me right, with their hatred for police officers and even occasionally killing cops themselves.
 
We say “All Lives Matter” because all lives truly matter, whether they be black, white, Latino, Asian, etc. However, in this backpedaling by the Left, they are FLAT OUT SAYING that Omar’s anti-Semitism isn’t actual anti-Semitism.
 
When have you ever heard anyone say “well, that young black man’s life didn’t really matter”? In their defense of Omar’s comments, that’s essentially what they are doing: saying Omar’s anti-Semitism wasn’t really important, or not as important as some of the other types of hatred.
 
By doing this, either the Democrat Party is spineless in refusing to condemn anti-Semitism or they are okay with it and will excuse obvious anti-Semitism as simple Israel criticism.
 
You can criticize Israel just fine (I largely won’t because there isn’t much for me to look at to criticize, apart from Israel’s Deep State trying to destroy Netanyahu), but you can’t accuse American citizens of having dual loyalties and only being willing to support Israel because Israel pays them to.
 
I mean, technically you can, because freedom of speech and all, but you should not do it and certainly not get away with it without some condemnation.
 
And this is simply the way things progress: they go from merely tolerating it to outright defending it and endorsing it.
 
The Democrat Party used to be merely tolerant of homosexuality, but still believing (supposedly) in traditional marriage. That went out the window long ago.
 
They used to merely suggest abortion as a choice and now think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread and every woman should happily get one with no regrets, never mind the fact that most women suffer depression from the loss of their baby afterwards.
 
And now, they’ve gone from opposing anti-Semitism to making excuses for it and trying to say something that is very clearly anti-Semitic is not actually anti-Semitic.
 
That road leads to allowing more and more of this hatred to the point where they hardly feel like making excuses.
 
That road leads the Democrat Party to becoming something similar to the Nazi Party all the more. They were already going towards the socialist aspect, something I always have pointed to as the main reason they are closer to Nazism than Trump is, but now, they are excusing anti-Semitism.
 
The only thing now that differentiates the Democrats from the Nazis is their globalism as opposed to nationalism. Basically, they are combining Nazism with Trotskyism.
 
Isaiah 1:23
“Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow’s cause does not come to 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.