On CBS’s “60 Minutes”, while trying to promote his new book regarding Trump and the FBI (which is 100% likely to have b.s. all over it), former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by President Trump on the eve of his retirement, claimed that “he and other Justice Department officials discussed recruiting Cabinet members to oust President Donald Trump using the 25th Amendment after Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey,” according to the Daily Wire.
 
The New York Times also reports that McCabe makes the claim that “top Justice Department officials were so alarmed by President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to fire James B. Comey, the bureau’s director,” that they contacted various Cabinet members to see how they would respond to the desire to apply the 25th Amendment, an amendment in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the Cabinet to “vote out” the president if he or she is incapacitated or otherwise is incapable of fulfilling his or her duties.
 
In other words, the FBI, at least McCabe, and the DOJ looked to test the water in Trump’s own Cabinet to see if they would be willing to remove the president using the 25th Amendment. Given that this attempt at a very obvious silent coup resulted in nothing the Deep State wanted, it is safe to assume the Cabinet did not wish to remove Trump from office.
 
Of course, that didn’t stop the Deep State from continuing trying to remove the duly-elected President from office just because they don’t like him one bit.
 
McCabe also made the claim that Comey’s firing “prompted Mr. McCabe to order the bureau’s team investigating Russia’s election interference to expand their scope to also investigate whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice.”
 
Again, it’s clear this amounted to nothing because Trump fired Comey in May of 2017. It’s been nearly two years and there has only been suggestions that it was obstruction of justice from the media, but no concrete case could be made against Trump because the FBI operates under the Executive branch, which Trump is the boss of, so he can fire whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants.
 
This includes terrible FBI directors who are incompetent at best and outright treasonous at worst (and sometimes both, considering they failed to complete their objective of destroying Trump).
 
Now, the man who interviewed McCabe is CBS’s Scott Pelley. Pelley discussed his interview with McCabe on “CBS This Morning” on Thursday.
 
Pelley said: “The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn’t know about.”
 
To me, it’s very illuminating of the kind of corruption there is in the Deep State, but it comes as no surprise to me. We’ve known that there has been a silent coup against Trump for about two years now. It’s just very illuminating seeing the details of something we knew very well about already.
 
In any case, Pelley continued: “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”
 
Again, none of this comes as any surprise to me. Still, it is always good and fascinating to learn of the procedures that were undertaken to try and remove Trump from office that very clearly failed.
 
And the funny thing is that McCabe also confirmed that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed having agents wearing a wire when speaking with Trump was discussed seriously, not as a joke, which Rosenstein tried to affirm.
 
Now, let me tell you a little something about what it takes to become an American citizen. Trust me, what I will tell you has more to do with this than you might think.
 
While seeking to become a citizen of the United States, people need to take certain oaths as part of becoming a citizen. Apart from taking tests and being able to speak basic English (although that might’ve been removed from the requirements for seriously dumb reasons), you have to swear allegiance to the United States of America.
 
And as part of this oath-swearing, you are required to swear and affirm that you will never attempt to overthrow the American government.
 
Obviously, everyone says that they won’t do that as part of trying to become a citizen, but people that try to overthrow the government very clearly receive some sort of punishment if they do try it. Now there exists in the penal code title 18 of the U.S. penal code § (Section) 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government.
 
There is also title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason. However, I do not really think there is a case against McCabe (or anyone else involved in this silent coup) using these two code sections.
 
The Advocating overthrow of Government section talks about people who violently or forcefully seek to overthrow the government. Talking with Cabinet members to use the 25th Amendment does not even get close to that requirement. As far as Treason goes, that largely talks about levying war against the U.S. or adhering to our enemies, “giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere”.
 
So I do not think there is a case against McCabe using either of these two clauses.
 
However, that does not mean that McCabe and others involved with this silent coup, such as Rod Rosenstein, Comey, etc., should simply get away with it. Of course, I’m not saying we ought to break the law to punish them. That would make us no better than these scums of the earth.
 
However, what I am saying is that it’s become crystal clear just what we are dealing with. The Deep State is a den of snakes. Corrupt people at various levels and areas of the government that routinely poison the well.
 
It is not enough to simply defeat Democrats in elections, we have to completely defeat the Left socially and spiritually. You’ve seen, for the past two years (and just about any time there is a Republican in office) the sort of visceral and vile reactions the Left shows.
 
When Trump beat Hillary, everyone on the Left was crying foul while they themselves were guilty of foul play, being covered up by the Mueller investigation into Trump. Every day, the media suggested Russia either hacked the election, and when that was shown to be an asinine argument, began to insist Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election.
 
When Bush beat Gore, the Left went haywire on the Supreme Court and on Florida, crying foul play. Now, I don’t know if they were themselves guilty of similar foul play back then, but I wouldn’t put it past them to have at least tried something. I’m too young to remember the Bush presidency (I’m also not from here, as I moved to the U.S. when Obama was in office), much less remember the 2000 election, apart from the cries from the Left against Florida and the Supreme Court (and I only learned about all this long after Bush left office), so maybe those who were here for it can remember some shady things, but since I do not have anything even close to evidence, I won’t allude to much. All I’ll say is I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to destroy Bush in a similar manner to Trump.
 
When Lincoln beat Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge and Democrat Stephen A. Douglas in the 1860 presidential election, seven states in the Democrat South decided to secede before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
 
The Left has historically HATED it when a Republican would beat a Democrat in a presidential election, going all the way back to the very first Republican president.
 
Instead of accepting the results of the elections like civilized and rational people, they often throw hissy-fits that last throughout that president’s entire tenure, be it one or two terms.
 
If it’s not outright secession from the Union, it’s attacking the Supreme Court and the State of Florida. If it’s not attacking the highest court in the land or the Sunshine State (Florida’s nickname), it’s insisting that the Republican victor of the election was in cahoots with foreign agents (a crime which the Clinton campaign and the DNC are very obviously guilty of themselves).
 
And now, we see some more details regarding the silent coup the Deep State has been attempting for the past two years. Again, it’s not surprising at all, but very illuminating.
 
And it’s fitting, to be quite honest. The Bible tells us an awful lot about works being made in the darkness coming to light.
 
Verses such as Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light,” and Luke 12:3: “Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops,” are only some verses that come to mind (and a quick Google search).
 
Whatever the enemy, be it Satan or the Deep State, is plotting in the dark will eventually come out into the light. Be it soon after it is plotted or years and years later. Be it immediately or takes a lifetime, these things are made known to us eventually. Not to compare this silent coup to the Holocaust because any comparisons to it tend to cheapen the horrors of it, but the Holocaust was something that was discovered to have happened only after WWII had already ended. All-the-while people were looking at Hitler as this bad guy looking to rule the world, many were made unaware of the true horrors that evil socialist was carrying out in the dark.
 
Again, not to compare what Hitler did to what the Deep State is trying here because there really is no comparison in terms of their horrifying natures, but they both do share in common that they are works by evil people, people completely devoid of Christ in their hearts, working in the darkness against people they hate/hated.
 
And both have come out into the light for the whole world to see. Of course, the extent of the silent coup is not quite yet known so far, but it will be made known eventually, whether it be in a few months, years, decades, or in the afterlife, it will be shown.
 
Certainly no part of it is any secret to God. The Deep State can hide whatever they want from the public for however long they feel is necessary, but nothing they do is a surprise to God. He knows precisely what they are doing and what the intentions of their hearts are.
 
We will see what kind of excuses these people come up with to justify their entrance into the Kingdom of God. I bet none of them have the correct answer.
 
1 Corinthians 4:5
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I often say that the Left is self-destructive. That the Left, at its core, is a way for society to self-destruct. You need only look at the Green New Deal to see the cyanide pill the Left wants to force down our throats (and their own, too).
 
I also often say that the ideologies they hold tend to lock horns with itself. For example, the Left supports both LGBT people and Muslims. Islam abhors homosexuality to the point where it is encouraged to eliminate anyone who is even suspected of being gay. The biggest shooting in American history, the Orlando gay night club shooting, really speaks more about Islam’s hatred of homosexuality than it does about gun laws in America (the terrorist shouldn’t have had a gun in the first place).
 
But we’re not even talking about that sort of infighting, though that will only continue in the future anyway.
 
No, today, I’m talking about a lesbian woman being kicked off of an LGBTQ Commission for following the biological and factual reasoning that a transwoman, regardless of what they identify as, is still a male and a transman, regardless of what they say, is still female. Science says as much.
 
Julia Beck is the lesbian woman we’re talking about here. She was kicked off the commission last October after “identifying a transgender rapist as male, his correct biological sex, though he ‘identifies’ as a woman,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
Beck recently was interviewed by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson about this. “I believe in truth”, she told Carson. “I believe that people should have these conversations and say things that matter without fear of punishment.”
 
Well, the unfortunate thing about this is that the Left largely does not want to have these conversations, because conversations about this alludes to people disagreeing with them and opposing them to any extent, and that cannot be allowed to occur.
 
Carlson replied to Beck by saying: “I couldn’t agree with you more, and I’m grateful that you have that attitude. But why do you think it was important to say this, specifically?”
 
Beck answered: “Well, when we get down to it, women and girls all share a biological reality. We are all female. But if any man, if any male person can call himself a woman, or be legally identified as female, then predatory men will do so in order to gain access to women’s single-sex spaces, and this puts every woman and girl at risk.”
 
THANK YOU! This is precisely the argument everyone on the Right was making regarding transgender bathroom laws (which the cowards in North Carolina caved on a long time ago). This sort of permission for biological males to use women’s restrooms just because they can make the claim that they identify as a woman and no one will bat an eye at that puts women and girls inside those restrooms in unnecessary peril.
 
Already, rape and other sexual assault acts are being called out as often as possible (see the entire #MeToo movement), so why would the Left be willing to put more women and girls in danger?
 
Actually, dumb question. These evil s.o.b.’s think the best option to dealing with gun crimes is taking away guns from those who obey the laws, further putting them in danger and in the lines of sight of those who do not care for any laws, much less gun laws.
 
If anything, both their desire to take away guns from law-abiding citizens and desire to allow men to enter women’s restrooms further shows the sort of self-destructive ideology I talked about in the beginning of the article. They claim to want to solve problems, but the only problems that arise come from the “solutions” the Left brings up.
 
But returning to Beck, she actually happens to be of sound and intelligent mind here. She recognizes the unnecessary dangers brought about by men in single-sex and typically female-only areas.
 
Carlson made sure to note in his show that it has always been his “instinct” that the transgender activists’ agenda “is not going to be good for girls in the long run.”
 
Beck replied by saying: “I absolutely agree. In many states, men can legally identify themselves as female and gain access to women’s single-sex spaces, and sports is just one institution where men are taking titles, scholarships, and this is a problem.”
 
Of course. Men are biologically stronger, on average, than women. Of course, there are some individual exceptions, but men tend to be stronger than women.
 
I remember watching Trump’s show “The Apprentice” some time ago and remember that, in the season opener, the very first task Trump gave to the teams, which were men vs. women, was running in one of his golf courses to his private helicopter in a race.
 
While these people were not necessarily athletes, and even though they were all wearing business suits that were definitely not made for running, unsurprisingly, the men won the race.
 
Why? Because men tend to be more physically fit, stronger, faster and athletic than women.
 
Watch an NBA game in comparison with a WNBA game and you’ll clearly see the differences between men and women, even among athletic men and women. Most men in the NBA can dunk, even if it’s not necessarily a flashy dunk, while most women in the WNBA can hardly reach the rim, if even that.
 
Biologically speaking, men tend to be physically superior to women. If anyone has a problem with that, don’t take it up with me, take it up to the One who made it this way. See if you can find some way of calling God a misogynist to His Face.
 
Returning to Beck, she then went on to say that women who even dare to speak out regarding the negatives and outright dangerous repercussions of radical transgender activism are pretty much “silenced”.
 
Carlson then asked if Beck “found it hard to advocate for biological truth and the protections of women and girls when she, an open lesbian, belongs to the LGBT acronym, which notably includes T for transgender,” according to The Daily Wire.
 
She answered: “The letters in the acronym share, um, not much. The L, G, and B, are based on sexuality, sex, biological reality, but the T is based on gender identity, which is not based in biological reality. In fact, I would argue it is opposed to biological reality. The LGB is very different from the T, and I don’t think it is fair to lump us all into the same acronym.”
 
Okay, a few things here. First, I completely agree with her on this. In fact, the B in LGBT stands for BISEXUAL. And bisexual insinuates a maximum of only two genders. Someone that is bisexual is someone who is attracted to both males and females, both men and women. Not transgender men or transgender women. Not Apache helicopter men and M1 Abrams tanks women. Not any of the 666 flavors of artificial gender. Just men and women. The only two options.
 
So the T in LGBT, at the end of the day, is in some ways an affront to the B in LGBT. Or, the other way around. In any case, it naturally creates infighting, much like we see in Beck’s case, though she is a lesbian woman trying to stand up for all women who are legitimately being left in the dust and led to the gallows by a self-righteous Left that further moves the needle towards Satan.
 
Second, her argument about transgenderism being opposed to biological reality is spot on and something we often say as well. No matter what you say, how you identify, you are what God made you to be. If you were born with the XX chromosomes, you are female. A biological female and that cannot be changed as your DNA is what dictates your gender among many other things.
 
If you have the XY chromosomes, you are male. And only a male. Nothing else will ever change that.
 
To make the claim that someone can be a female, even if they are a biological male, is to spit in the face of science (and God, really). It defies logic and facts.
 
And funny enough, this defiance of logic and facts also does what I talked about in the beginning: self-destruct society.
 
Logic and facts are necessary in a civilized society. When logic is ignored and facts are challenged (not in a scientific effort to advance the craft, but in a political effort to distort reality), you don’t make progress in humanity, you do the opposite of that. Regression is the only thing that results in ignoring and distorting reality.
 
Just take a look at the world around us, where you can be punched in the face or berated and verbally attacked for holding a differing opinion from someone else. And it doesn’t even have to relate to politics. Differences in opinion in terms of philosophy, art, even video games can result in such brutish violence.

This lack of self-control of emotions is almost no different from barbarians killing each other off or attacking each other for next to no reason. And this is the direction society is heading towards if the Left gets their way. There is no room for civilized discussion. Everyone needs their own safe spaces and if that cannot be accomplished, emotions flare and human life, which has lost all meaning after decades of abortion advocacy, is brutally ended.
 
And I’m not just talking about being unable to physically get to some sort of “safe space”. I’m talking about being so triggered by the mere existence of a differing opinion that severe action is taken. An extreme and rare scenario, yes, but a possible one nonetheless.
 
Even Julia Beck explains in an article about lesbianism and transgenderism how her views leave people to actively ostracize her, to the point where she explains that “people I trusted told me to die in a fire for naming male people men.”
 
A figure of speech, of course, but when does it stop being mere linguistics and begin being actual threats, or even actual attempts?
 
Granted, most people that wish that upon someone (as evil as they may be) won’t actually do it. But it only takes one madman or woman (notice that there’s only two options here) to actually attempt it.
 
In any case, despite our political and religious differences, Beck and I can at least agree to hold on to what is real, logical and factual. I’m not saying Beck is a conservative because of this (though I imagine many people will call her that, meant as an insult). But I am saying that she at least has common sense.
 
And common sense is a rare trait in Leftist advocacy groups.
 
1 Corinthians 15:33
“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

After two years, 200 interviews and millions of dollars wasted on a witch hunt of an investigation into a fictional theory by salty Leftists who refused to accept the result of the 2016 presidential elections, the Senate Intelligence Committee is set to finally conclude its investigation into the 2016 election, Russian collusion and Donald Trump, having “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee,” reports NBC News.
 
In an interview with CBS News last week, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said: “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”
 
“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to. What I’m telling you is that I’m going to present, as best we can, the facts to you and to the American people. And you’ll have to draw your own conclusions as to whether you think that, by whatever definition, that’s collusion,” Burr added.
 
Most likely, what they will present as being the facts is that Trump Jr. met with that Russian lawyer in the hopes of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton but wound up with nothing because there was never any intention by the Russian lawyer to give Jr. anything and the fact that Trump “urged” Russia to retrieve Hillary’s 30k+ deleted e-mails during a rally (and the Left still can’t take a joke).
 
NBC reports that Democrats on the committee believe that Trump associates were “willing to accept help from a foreign adversary” during the election, again referencing the Trump Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer.
 
So being willing to accept help from a foreign adversary is tantamount to a crime or at least seen as a bad thing to do? Good! Then, we really should be slapping some handcuffs on the people who worked on the Clinton campaign and the DNC, right?
 
Back in April of 2018, the House Intel Committee released a report that said pretty much the same thing the Senate is saying: there is no Trump-Russia collusion.
 
While Trump Jr. sought to gain dirt on Hillary with Natalia Veselnitskaya (the Russian lawyer), the Clinton campaign “paid for opposition research on Trump obtained from Russian sources, including a litany of claims by high-ranking current and former Russian government officials. Some of this opposition research was used to produce sixteen memos, which comprise what has become known as the Steele dossier.”
 
That was an excerpt from the House Intel Committee’s report.
 
So, NBC, if it’s simply bad enough that Trump sought opposition research on Hillary from a “foreign adversary” that he should face some sort of consequence, I presume Hillary Clinton and anyone involved with the DNC should also face dire consequences because not only did they try to get research, but actually had some (even if it’s fake) and actually used it as a basis for the Mueller investigation, right?
 
When is Hillary’s court date? Or Donna Brazille’s? Or Debby Wasserman-Schultz’s? Or Barack Obama’s? Or James Comey’s? Or James Clapper’s? Or John Brennan’s? I won’t ask about John McCain because he’s probably already serving his time.
 
Now, one Democrat aide, who chose to remain anonymous, told NBC News regarding this: “We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude.’” Clearly, this anonymous aide was less-than-thrilled about this outcome.
 
Well, considering the Democrats want to look into every business affair Trump’s ever had, and want to look into his tax returns, convinced they will see money somehow wired to or from the Kremlin during the 2016 election, I actually think they were expecting something like that to be somewhere around.
 
I mean, if they’re convinced there’s mountains of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, surely it should be as simple as Donny leaving Vladdy-boy a sticky-note on his desk in Moscow that they are going to collude to steal the election, right? Because Trump’s just that dumb and obvious, right?
 
The reason I say at the beginning of the title that they are telling me something I already knew (fun fact, that was also what I had to say when the House Intel Committee released their report back in April) is because I KNEW FULL WELL THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!
 
You don’t even have to be a lawyer or an investigator to figure this out. You just need to read the atmosphere within the Left and the media – that they want to get Trump if it’s the last thing they do – and understand the nature of how leaks work, particularly considering how the Steele dossier and Comey telling Trump about the dossier was leaked so easily by/to the media (because Comey gave it to them). If any investigation into Trump actually found anything relating to Trump and Russia, they would talk about it. How else do you think we got to learn about Veselnitskaya? Or just about anything else? Whatever can be found about Trump and Russia is sent out into the media as fast as it is learned (which is also why there are so many gaffes, like dates on e-mails being wrong). So if there was any conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, we would’ve heard about it immediately.
 
But after two years of looking into nothing, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation is finally wrapping up, with Mueller’s investigation also perhaps coming to a close in the near future, at least according to NBC News.
 
Personally, I don’t think Mueller will close it any time soon. The Left has/had high hopes for it and if it finds nothing of substance, Mueller could be getting the Seth Rich treatment. And I’m only half-joking about that.
 
In any case, despite the two-year-long witch hunt into Trump that will not likely fully end any time soon because Democrats are vindictive s.o.b.’s, Trump’s approval rating currently sits at a near all-time high of 52%, according to Rasmussen, with 55% being his all-time high, back just a little after Trump’s inauguration.
 
So even after two years of lies and deceit and hateful rhetoric from the media, his approval rating is only holding strong and growing.
 
If things keep going like this, Democrats will have the fight of their lives in 2020, especially if they continue down the road of the idiotic Green New Deal.
 
Proverbs 28:5
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

With all the articles I’ve written surrounding college students and their beliefs, many of which are Left-leaning, it’s kind of surprising to see that title at all.
 
Not to offend any college students, but given what the Left has been pushing and that most college students would either consider themselves socialists or at least liberal, what I am about to share with you is pretty fantastic, all things considered.
 
And if anything, what I am about to share with you proves at least two points that I often make: 1) it is important to educate and inform people and 2) the Left lives in their own little bubble where they think most people will go with whatever they want.
 
Of course, that second point should come with a little asterisk. Many people do say they like the Green New Deal, as all of these college students will be shown saying, but the first point of informing people lets us know that, once people have correct information, they will change their tune about some things.
 
Without further ado, let’s talk about the most recent Campus Reform video (below), where Cabot Phillips went to the University of Miami to ask what the students thought about AOC’s Green New Deal.
 
Unsurprisingly, all of them had positive things to say about it.
 
One said: “I like that it’s progressive, that it’s gonna push the world forward.” Another said: “Just from knowing who’s endorsing it and some other little things, it sounds great.”
 
One student, fully buying into the crap that we’re slowly killing ourselves with climate change, said: “If we didn’t do that, we’re going to be killing ourselves.”
 
Every student interviewed initially said that they approved of the Green New Deal.
 
And then, Cabot told them what’s actually in it.
 
He begins by saying that the plan includes eliminating all carbon emissions (coal, oil, natural gas) within 10 years.
 
Right off the bat, the first person he told that to said “I don’t agree with that. To be honest with you, I think we need those things to live.” Another realized that, while it might be a worthwhile endeavor (it’s not), she noted that “I do not think it is feasible in ten years… I don’t think that would be something that would be able to be done in such a short amount of time.”
 
So while she does seem to agree with the concept of eliminating those things, she at least recognizes that 10 years is not enough time to actually manage that, which is more than I can say for AOC.
 
Another student took a similar approach, believing 10 years to be too little time to manage doing that, but also looked into it in an economical perspective, recognizing that there’s a huge global market and economy based around these things that would definitely be severely affected by such a task.
 
The next item on the list that Phillips noted was the part where people who are unwilling to work would still be economically compensated, and this is where things made a right-turn… as in, they sounded more conservative.
 
Or, in other words, they sounded like they had common sense and did not want freeloaders.
 
One said: “If you’re not willing to contribute to society, I don’t think the people who are contributing should pay for you.”
 
THANK YOU! What is fair about people who are willing to work paying for those unwilling to work? Furthermore, while this is something they don’t actually cover in the video because it’s only 5 minutes long, but how could society possibly sustain itself if we have a safety net where those UNWILLING to work get money for not working? How would that work and how would that be sustainable?
 
Young people are definitely worried about things being sustainable (while being lied to that things are not currently sustainable), so they ought to worry about economic sustainability just as much as they do about environmental sustainability.
 
In any case, these students really impressed me by their stance on that issue in particular, with comments such as the one made by that guy, or things like: “I feel like it kind of sends a poor message of ‘you can just get away with not doing anything’… it’s kind of stupid.”
 
Again, thank you. It is insanely stupid, not just trying to think of the consequences of this, but also the actual concept behind it all. People should not be getting free stuff for being UNWILLING to do anything. It’s one thing to not actually be able to do anything. A safety net for such people is acceptable and moral, but for those UNWILLING to do anything, that goes against logic and common sense. Not to mention it goes against God. God wants us to work, not sit on our behinds doing nothing all day. People need to work to survive, and it’s actual madness to demand that working people pay for those who are unwilling to lift a finger to contribute to society and/or the economy.
 
The final item on the list of looney tunes plans to “save the planet” in the Green New Deal (and having recently watched Space Jam for the hundredth time, you are more likely to stretch out your arm like Jordan did against the Monstars than you are of paying for all of these things in the GND and have a functioning, let alone thriving, economy) is the plan to replace all air travel with high-speed rails going across the country (which really leaves Hawaii and Alaska in the dust, when you think about it).
 
As with the first item Phillips brought up, many went back to the impossibility of doing that within 10 years. Although, one did say that he doesn’t think air travel “should be eliminated altogether… it can be an option… The more options we have, the better.”
 
Cabot even raised the issue of who would pay for the multi-trillion dollar cost of the entire plan (which easily surpasses $100 trillion, given medicare-for-all on its own is almost half that) to one female student. She herself did not know who would be able to pay or how they would be able to pay for all of this, showing that it’s still a worthwhile question to ask people.
 
Finally, Cabot asked them, after learning of some of the details of the plan, if they changed their perception of the GND at all. They all changed their tune.
 
One said: “Sometimes you need to take extreme measures to save the environment, but I think that’s too extreme.”
 
I would disagree with the notion that we need to take extreme measures to “save” (save it from what?) the environment, but agree with her overall perception that such a plan is too extreme. Given that the U.S. is currently reducing its CO2 emissions and the other countries, most notably the ones in the Paris Climate accord, are actually increasing their CO2 emissions, I would just say the only measures we need to take are the ones the Trump administration’s EPA is currently taking.
 
But in any case, I am glad to see that these college students do have some common sense. And again, I raise the point that it’s uniquely important to give people correct information.
 
Before knowing anything about it, these kids supported the Green New Deal (precisely BECAUSE they didn’t know anything about it). Given who was supporting it, as one student noted, they liked it. They think AOC is cool because she’s young, attractive and a socialist and she truly wants to change things up in Washington, which is something people on both sides seem to want.
 
Of course, we disagree as to how to go about it, but that’s something many people want. The problem comes when people actually come to understand just what is being proposed by the Left. The Green New Deal, as I made sure to talk about in length in my previous article, is bad satire that the Left wants to make reality.
 
But given the response by COLLEGE STUDENTS, upon learning just what is actually in the plan, they came to disapprove or at least hesitate about the plan. The idea of trying to fight climate change might be a noble one to these kids, but at the very least they understand how ludicrous these proposals are, particularly given the timetable to do those things being so short.
 
Again, this is why it is so important to inform people. I’ve said this many times, but I’ll say it again: the only people that want socialism are those who don’t know what it is (ignorant or uninformed), those who are given information as to what it is but don’t think too much about it or can’t understand why it’s bad (stupid people) or those who know what it is and couldn’t care less because they are running for an office in the government (evil people).
 
I find that, for the most part, people are ignorant. And I don’t mean that in an insulting way at all. Being ignorant and being stupid are two different things, as I’ve said in the past. You can’t cure stupid, but you can cure ignorance with knowledge, facts, etc.
 
These kids were ignorant about the Green New Deal. They would be stupid if, after learning these things, they still agreed with it 100%. However, they proved to me and to those of you who are willing to watch the video that they are not stupid. They do not lack common sense. They just lack information, which can be easily fixed.
 
Of course, there is also the issue of being misinformed, but given the clown show that the AOC camp is giving us with their handling of the Green New Deal and what it contains, I don’t think there’s much chance that people will be easily misinformed about this.
 
Of course, the MSM will try, because that is all they ever seek to do, but this one should be fairly easy to counteract.
 
But returning to these kids, I thank God that people still have some sort of common sense. Enough that, when faced with these ridiculous proposals, they show everyone that the Left lives in a bubble of their own, where they think everyone agrees with them all the time and want what they want.
 
This tells me otherwise.
 
Proverbs 2:10
“For wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.”
 
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, socialist nut-job Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), released the outline for what the Green New Deal will try to achieve in the next ten years.
 
And boy, oh boy, does it read worse than the worst essay I’ve ever written for school.
 
Since this was released last week, I imagine many of you know some of the details of the proposed Green New Deal, but allow me to go over some of them just in case you haven’t desired risking IQ points reading through it.
 
The beginning really just talks about how we’re destroying our climate (no evidence to point to, of course) and we need to do make severe changes (note how it’s only because of us that the climate is being destroyed. We’re reducing CO2 emissions, while France, China and other socialist countries increase theirs, but WE’RE the problem).
 
The first objective of the Green New Deal is “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”
 
Okay, a few things. First, it’s pretty much impossible to do that (a recurring theme you will see as I go through this laughable-if-people-weren’t-so-serious-about-it proposition) without nuclear power. And the Green New Deal is adamant about MOVING AWAY from nuclear power, so the chances of managing to do that in the next 50 years, let alone 10, are zero.
 
Second, what exactly does it mean by “fair” and “just”? Definitely not what we think as fair and just. The plan, of course, is to have the government pay for all of this. The government gets paid by We the People. Sure, the rich pay the vast majority of it, but, as I’ve said in multiple articles, the threshold for what is considered rich always gets lowered when you take away rich people’s money. So how is it fair (under the assumption this is even doable) to have upper middle-class, and then middle-class and then lower middle-class and then lower-class people pay for it? (Side note: the country would collapse way before they get to the lower class, but they are still made to suffer the most by massive nation-wide layoffs before they are stuck with the bill).
 
Let’s move on to what immediately follows that idiotic proposal: “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
 
Again, a couple of things. First, we’re already managing to do the first part with the Trump economy, which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is “resisting”. Second, what she proposes would do literally the opposite of that. Third, economic prosperity and security should not be a guarantee. No one is entitled to living well. People have to earn it. When people feel entitled to it, they get bitter and will refuse to work (and we’ll get to that in a moment). The Declaration of Independence grants certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. No one is entitled to happiness, but they are entitled the right to pursue it (which would be taken away by the implementation of this pile of dog-crap).
 
Skipping some other items, we get to some more “guarantees”: “to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come – clean air and water; climate and community resiliency (what does that even mean?); healthy food; access to nature (apparently, people can’t go outside); and a sustainable environment; and to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’)…”
 
Okay, that was a whole lot of stupid to compile into one paragraph and a whole lot of things to cover. Now, I don’t want to make this article too long (the Green New Deal is more than 10 pages long), so I will get to the most important bits (although the whole thing is a compilation of socialist lunacy and a saddening lack of any kind of intelligence).
 
Of course, the Green New Deal just has to include reparations not just for black people, but all people who have been “oppressed” historically. Because you see, the mere fact that there was slavery at all is disqualifying of the entire country. Never mind that every other country in existence, with few exceptions, have also allowed slavery (some still allow for slavery to this very day) and heavily benefited from slavery. No, it’s just the U.S. that’s bad.
 
Let me remind you just who it was that FOUGHT for slavery. America is the only country in the world that actually had to go to war to end slavery. On one side, you had the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to abolish slavery. On the other, you had the Democrat South, led by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who wanted to keep their “right” to keep slaves.
 
Let me remind you that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a hot-button issue for the Democrat Party, with about half voting for it and the other half voting against it, while the Republican Party was almost entirely unified in their support of the bill.
 
The only people that continually oppress people is the Left. How do we go about abolishing them?
 
In any case, let’s move on. The Green New Deal also proposes “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
 
Again, a few things to talk about. First, there are about 127 million residential buildings in the country. That doesn’t include commercial buildings (good luck trying to literally rebuild all of Manhattan), industrial buildings, hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc. I don’t see this happening in the next 100 years, let alone 10.
 
Second, what do you mean doing this “including through electrification”? Powering them up? Makes sense. But how exactly would that be accomplished? The power grid relies almost entirely on fossil fuels (the GND also proposes upgrading the power grid, of course, just doesn’t mention exactly how). Batteries, even if they could actually power up whole buildings (which they can’t), need to be recharged BY FOSSIL FUELS.
 
The GND also proposes building high-speed rails across the country to make air travel obsolete (and even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had issues with that, given it would really screw Hawaii over).
 
It also proposes “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” That, on top of guaranteeing a free college education, as well as ensuring there are “high-quality union jobs” and guaranteeing everyone “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”, “build charging stations everywhere” (yes, everywhere), “replace every combustion-engine vehicle”, and try to “get rid of farting cows” (not a joke, that part was included verbatum) and other emitters of pollution is a recipe for economic disaster.
 
Let me ask these nut-jobs a question: if people are guaranteed economic security, even if they refuse to work, then who in the world is going to build those cross-country railroads? Who is going to renovate and rebuild literally every single building in the country to be environmentally friendly? Who is going to build charging stations “everywhere”? Who is going to produce the necessary materials to even try to do all that? And who is going to be qualified to do all of that and willing to do it as well?
 
Who is going to run the electrical plants (that are somehow free of gas emissions) to power up anything?
 
And most importantly, where is the money to do all of this going to come from?
 
When people are GUARANTEED free stuff, such as money, they will largely be unwilling to do work that helps everyone. I’ve made this argument before, but it’s just as relevant as ever: no one is going to do manual labor if they are guaranteed an income and economic security. The only jobs that people will do are things relating to the arts. Only works of passion will be done. But then again, who is going to run the cameras for shows? Who is going to put the make-up on the actors? Who is going to do anything that has nothing to do with a passionate job?
 
If everyone is guaranteed an income, who is going to tear down the buildings to renovate them in the first place? And if the money is only guaranteed after either the buildings are torn down (which in itself would take ages) or when the new buildings are up (which would take far longer) how are the workers going to live? They won’t be getting that guaranteed money everyone else is getting, so why would they bother to do anything?
 
This ENTIRE proposal is lacking in so much common sense, I think I would’ve come up with something better while I was in preschool. Even back then, I understood the concept of money. If something couldn’t be paid for, I understood the concept of doing something else.
 
One of my earliest memories is hearing the news that the Argentine government was confiscating people’s money in their bank accounts, causing millions of Argentines to go below the poverty line overnight (and don’t think that can’t happen here, particularly with what these lunatics are proposing).
 
I remember because my family was also affected by this (thankfully, my parents, or at least my mother, had a good job so we’d be okay, but not many people were so lucky) and it got me to realize some basic truths in life: money is limited.
 
Of course, as I grew up, I understood the concept of printing money (which is probably how these whackos will try and pay for all of this, because it WILL have to be paid somehow and the rich don’t have enough money to pay for it) and the concept of inflation created by doing such a thing.
 
It’s basic economics, basic supply and demand, that should tell these idiots that you can’t just print unlimited money and pay for everything. The more there is of an item, i.e. money, the less valuable it is. So that multi-trillion dollar price-tag for even ONE of these items gets increased exponentially.
 
Now, the reason I say that this is bad satire, is because I could hardly believe anyone would be stupid enough to suggest these things and anyone would be stupid enough to back these things. Kamala Harris supports it, but I don’t think she read it. I might be giving her too much credit, but I don’t think she’s all that dumb.
 
Nancy Pelosi, being that she’s actually politically smart (even if she says dumb partisan things like the GOP tax cuts will cause the apocalypse) actively avoids this Green New Deal. She doesn’t flat-out reject it, but she is not taking it seriously and likely doesn’t want to put this piece that might as well have been written in crayon on the House floor.
 
This entire proposal highlights what the Left wants to do: replace capitalism with socialism. In the name of fighting climate change, of course.
 
I would laugh at this proposal if people weren’t so serious about this. They legitimately think these things can be done. They completely ignore reality – the reality that even trying to implement ONE of these things would destroy us economically and everyone would be living in abject poverty as the rest of the world did before capitalism became a thing. The reality that the U.S. is lowering its CO2 levels while China cares nothing for the climate. And why would they? The communists already have total power. They didn’t need to run on fighting climate change. They were helped by the Soviets to establish a communist state.
 
The good news about this is that it’s become very easy to counter all of these points. The bad news is that people might just be getting dumber and dumber. The fact that this proposal, alongside AOC and Markey, aren’t being laughed out of Washington speaks volumes.
 
Just 5 to 10 years ago, these proposals, as they are written, would’ve caused laughing fits. Of course, the actual proposals are nothing new. The Left has been trying to accomplish these things, such as eliminating combustion engines and air travel for decades now. But the language of it all is very blunt. It spells out exactly what they want, which is something they previously had to hide.
 
The problem then is that this is not being met by mock and ridicule, but applause and cheers. People in California will read this and think it’s a brilliant masterpiece, as if written by the great Karl Marx himself. They won’t stop to think “this is ludicrous and actually impossible to accomplish in the next century, let alone decade”. They see the goals and don’t care about how to accomplish them as long as they just try.
 
This is the culmination of the participation trophy generation. As long as we try, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if millions are starving to death, are homeless and there is absolutely no hope for anyone to live better lives (and we all know Christianity would be rejected and persecuted), as long as we tried, that’s all that matters.
 
It’s not just sickening and idiotic, it’s actually insanely dangerous. This is the sort of mindset that will set humanity back thousands of years. Nothing good can come of even trying to implement all of this (and that’s all there is: trying. There is no accomplishing any of this because it’s uniquely impossible to do any of this, especially in just a decade).
 
I just hope that God will spare us of this mess and Rapture comes before these people attempt to implement these things.
 
Titus 3:5
“He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 
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.

That title is not so much a request for anyone who knows socialism is a failure and is horrible as much as a request for anyone who thinks the opposite: that socialism is great and we should bring it here.
 
I understand full-well that the vast majority of those who will read this and watch the accompanying video (below) from Campus Reform are on the side that knows that socialism is a catastrophe, but it is always important to listen to those who have experience in some matter, as they will have knowledge that many others likely lack.
 
In his State of the Union address, President Trump declared that America would never become a socialist country. However, the very reason he felt the need to make such a declaration is because there are people in Washington now that are openly advocating for socialism in America, and most Democrats view socialism more favorably than capitalism, according to polls.
 
So to gain a better understanding and perspective of what it is like to live in a socialist country, Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips went to a Venezuelan Freedom rally in D.C. to ask some people who actually have lived in Venezuela some questions.
 
He begins by asking this elderly man and a young-ish looking man (I’m guessing early thirties): “what is your message to those who want socialism here?”
 
One said: “You do not ever want anything close to socialism.” Another person noted: “people are eating from trash cans in the streets, so how has socialism helped?”
 
Another rally attendee, whose family is still in Venezuela, unfortunately, added: “No Venezuelan can like socialism, because we’ve seen it put in place very well.”
 
The aforementioned young-ish looking man said that socialism “is not a game… not the route to go. It is not possible, it is not feasible. Don’t fall for it.”
 
Another female attendee said: “It doesn’t work the way the book says it works because we’re humans and we have imperfections and socialism is too perfect to be true.”
 
Now, I have some things to say about that one. First, I suppose by “the book” she means Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. And I personally have, in the past, at least once before, explained just why Marx’s theory of how communism is supposed to work is very flawed, but for those who might’ve missed it, I will get to that in a moment.
 
Second, I imagine the lady meant to say that it sounds too perfect to be true, because if it were “too perfect”, it would work. The idea that someone can protect you and watch over you, that that entity will take care of things for you, that it can take care of everything and everyone, that all problems are erased for one reason or another does sound heavenly… because that’s the only place where this actually works.
 
Not to say that God is a socialist. Socialism, by nature, puts the government ahead of everything else. The government is not God, so socialism very much goes against God. But God, being the only perfect being in existence, can actually do everything these loony socialists think the government can do.
 
And that’s what we should focus on: the fact that it takes perfection for something like socialism to actually work. Not something CLOSE to perfection, but actual perfection.
 
Just look at Medicare-for-All. That idea alone costs over $40 trillion. We have nowhere near that amount of money, even if you confiscate everything the rich have (which, of course, would lower the threshold for what constitutes as being rich, so the upper-middle class is considered rich, but they definitely don’t live like the rich. As a result, they are left to pay the tab, and when they can’t, the bar gets lower and lower. Just look at… well… Venezuela).
 
And that’s just one thing these socialists want. We can’t pay for it and it would destroy our country by simply TRYING to pay for it. So what is necessary here is to have a nearly, or actually, endless supply of money. There is no such thing on this plain of existence because everything is limited to some amount. God, however, has unlimited resources. Not that Medicare-for-All would even be considered as necessary in heaven, since no one gets hurt, but still. Literally God is the only being in existence that can afford Medicare-for-All.
 
And by the way, this is ignoring the very fact that people are, themselves, imperfect and naturally evil. It’d be difficult to make socialism work even with people who are not naturally evil. What I talked about in the last two paragraphs only talks about the financial stipulations of ONE item of socialism. But that ignores the fact that people are imperfect and naturally evil.
 
Again, let’s take a look at Venezuela. Nicolas Maduro lives in the Miraflores Palace. As the name suggests, it is a literal palace. He lives like literal royalty, is perfectly well-fed, has security, healthcare, and everything he wants or needs.
 
Meanwhile, people are forced to eat their own pets, and when that meal is gone, are forced to eat out of the trashcan or even go to the zoo to eat some animals there. They have no actual healthcare, even though socialism promises that because they don’t have much in terms of medicine, resources, doctors, etc. Not to mention that power outages are also a problem for many hospitals and clinics.
 
If socialism truly were about equality, Maduro would share what he has with as many people as he could. And if people weren’t naturally evil, Maduro wouldn’t be blocking a U.S.-backed humanitarian convoy with food and medicine from entering the country.
 
The only system of government that truly creates any sort of wealth gap between the 1% and everyone else is socialism/communism. Of course, at that point, the 1% are really only people at the very top of the government.
 
For example, Venezuela’s richest woman is Maria Gabriela Chavez, Hugo Chavez’s daughter. Her net worth is $4.2 billion. Nicolas Maduro’s net worth, at least according to Heavy.com, is estimated to be around $2 million. However, this only accounts for his salary, which, due to Venezuelan laws, can only cap out at 12 times of the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Venezuela, according to a recent Reuters article is 18,000 bolivars a month. This was actually a raise of 300% by Maduro earlier last month.
 
If you think that’s not bad, know that 18,000 bolivars is basically $6.70. And let me remind you this is PER MONTH! Not per hour; per month.
 
And by the way, he actually has made more than just $2 million dollars. According to the Miami Herald, Nicolas Maduro, when he was just a candidate, demanded a $50 million bribe from Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht. The company, according to Venezuela’s exiled AG Luisa Ortega, did not agree to that and “only paid him $35 million”.
 
If we’re talking bribes here, it is unlikely the money went to the Venezuelan government. It likely went to Maduro’s pockets. So the reason Heavy.com says his net worth is only $2 million is because that is the estimate given his salary as President of Venezuela. It was hard to gauge how wealthy Chavez was, so I imagine it can be hard to gauge Maduro’s wealth too.
 
In any case, what I’m trying to say is that the only people that actually live like the 1% are those up high in the government and their families.
 
Maduro lives like a king while his people barely make anything and struggle to survive.
 
But even if Maduro weren’t a jerk, the country would still be a dystopia under socialism because that is what it does.
 
Like I said before, I will try my best at explaining Marx’s reasoning behind his idea of communism.
 
Marx theorized, and I’m not even joking, that people in a capitalist country would naturally evolve past capitalism and go towards communism. And then, after there is full-on communism and every problem is magically solved, there will not be any need for a government at all, no need for a state, no need for a nation, because people will be able to self-govern.
 
That is basically the gist of his theory. That communism is the NATURAL evolution to capitalism and that, once there is complete government control of the means of production and everything is great, there is no need for government and it will NATURALLY also evolve to people governing themselves without a state.
 
It is literally ridiculous, every part of it.
 
But what I want to focus on with this, since I could write an entire article based on this alone, is the fact that for this to even be REMOTELY POSSIBLE, people would need to be two things: 1) PERFECT and 2) NATURALLY GOOD.
 
And that’s just talking about the people running things. This is ignoring the fact that you would need an endless source of income in order to afford everything and make everything work. Not to mention the fact that communism requires people being willing to do things out of the kindness of their own hearts, such as working when they don’t need to work or paying what they don’t need to pay (look at Panera Bread’s attempt at running restaurants by telling people they can pay whatever they want for the food until they had to close every restaurant that ran that way).
 
But Marx’s overall theory is heavily flawed, the people are flawed, and the system is heavily flawed. Socialism does not work and there is not one example in the history of the world in which it has worked. However, there are multiple examples in which socialism is shown to be a disaster for the people and the country that attempts it.
 
Communism has killed well over 100 million people. Death and despair follow everywhere there is socialism.
 
Which is why I’m astounded at the stupidity of people like Ocasio-Cortez, who complains about the way people live in New York, where THE GOVERNMENT ENACTS SOCIALIST LAWS AND POLICIES!
 
If AOC were intelligent, she would notice the high cost of living in New York, notice how badly people live there, and look at how things are being run, i.e., socialistically, and deduce that socialism and big government does not work and only hurts people.
 
The people affected by socialism want to leave it. Sometimes, they acknowledge that socialism is horrible, such as the people in the Venezuelan Freedom rally, and sometimes, they fail to recognize that socialism is horrible and vote for people that want to implement it wherever they move.
 
This is the importance of educating and informing people. Socialism is humanity’s worst idea ever. And the people that advocate for it are either uninformed of this fact, are informed but are stupid, or are informed and evil.
 
I pray that Trump is right when he says that America will never be a socialist country. I pray that God spares us from such a horrible fate. But regardless of what may happen, I know it will be part of God’s Plan for us. Even under the worst circumstance, those who are saved will never have to live through the worst of it all.
 
We can all thank God for that.
 
Ephesians 2:8
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. 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.

While the Democrats and the media very clearly prepared for one particular speech from Trump (Stacey Abrams barely even responded to what Trump said and decided to talk about things Trump didn’t even mention such as voter “suppression”, etc., and NBC’s Chuck Todd said the speech was “absurd” before the speech was even delivered), Trump delivered a knockout speech that not many people probably expected, myself included.
 
That’s not to say I expected his speech to be bad whatsoever, but I was impressed by how good it was. It was better than I thought it would be and many people thought the same.
 
After the President delivered perhaps his best speech yet, in which he actually got America-hating Democrats to chant “USA! USA!” (albeit in a celebration that featured Democrat women cheering themselves instead of things that actually matter to women), CNN and CBS ran post-speech polls to see what the viewing public thought of his speech.
 
Both CNN and CBS found that a whopping 76% of viewers approved of Trump’s speech, with only 24% disapproving.
 
Of course, since this is good for Trump, the people reporting on this had to try and underscore it by giving excuses like “the president’s… supporters tend to turn out to watch the speech. This is true of a president of either party. Tonight we saw a heavily skewed Republican audience turn out to watch the president’s speech.”
 
By the way, the person who made that excuse was CNN Political Director David Chalian, who honestly sounded a bit perplexed over what he had to report. His assumption likely was that most people hated Trump and most people would hate his speech, but reality is quite the opposite of that.
 
Anyway, Chalian reported some more numbers. He says: “But look at this. A very positive reaction from those who watched the speech tonight. 59% very positive. 17% somewhat positive. 23% negative.” Again, you can tell that he was pretty perplexed over this.
 
Chalian also noted a question in the poll that asked “Will Donald Trump increase bipartisan cooperation?” According to the poll, 53% say no, while 39% say yes.
 
I’m personally part of the 53% of those who think Trump won’t increase bipartisan cooperation. However, it is not because of Trump in any way. He’s a pretty great leader, in my opinion. No, the fault lies in the obstructionist Democrats, who literally ran on impeaching, or at least definitely investigating, Trump all the way to Hell. It’s kind of hard to be bipartisan with people who proclaim they will “impeach the mother f***er”. Kind of hard to be bipartisan with people who will refuse pretty much everything they have been asking for the last couple of years in exchange for what is basically chump-change to build a wall.
 
So I don’t think Trump will increase bipartisan cooperation but not because of anything Trump does or doesn’t do. Democrats don’t want to work with Trump. They pretend to think he cheated to get elected and want to kick him out. Why would they work with him? So they are the ones refusing any bipartisanship.
 
Anyway, let’s move on to the CBS poll, which also found that 76% of viewers approved of Trump’s speech and only 24% disapproved. Very similar numbers to the CNN poll.
 
The CBS poll looked into party lines, finding that 97% of Republicans approved of Trump’s speech. 82% of Independents also approved of Trump’s speech, as did 30% of Democrats.
 
This is very good for Trump. Virtually all Republicans approved of his speech, which tends to happen for a Republican President, but 82% of Independents and 30% of Democrats also approved. Of course, the most impressive number there is the number of Independents, but a relatively decent number of Democrats also approved. Frankly, I expected far less than that. With 92% negative coverage of Trump, Democrats really only get to see one side of Trump: the bad orange man. But here, they got to see another side of Trump (at least for the ones that bothered to watch).
 
Moving on, CBS also found that 72% of viewers agreed with the President on immigration reform, 71% agreed that we are facing a crisis at the border (something the Democrats outright ignore and claim is totally made up) and 74% agreed with his handling of troops in the Middle East.
 
Unlike CNN, CBS actually bothered to look into the party affiliation of viewers and found that 43% of the viewing audience was Republican, 24% Democrat and 30% Independent. So the viewership was skewed towards the Republicans, but it was still decent for every affiliation. But you can also say that the majority of the viewers were not Republicans.
 
Regarding bipartisanship, the CBS poll found that only 33% think Trump and Pelosi will work with each other more, 4% thought they’d work with each other less than they already do, and 63% say things will not really change regarding that.
 
Considering that Pelosi really does not want to even pretend to want to work with the President, I would find it fascinating if she somehow managed to work with him even less. I think she would straight up have to work from Puerto Rico to manage that.
 
Jokes aside, I also think that nothing will change regarding this, not because of anything to do with Trump but because Pelosi is part of the obstructionist movement in Congress.
 
But overall, the speech was absolutely fantastic and most people who watched it found themselves agreeing with just about everything Trump brought up.
 
I personally thought he knocked the ball out of the park when he talked about more women being in Congress than ever before, prompting Democrats and the Women in White (who really do a disservice to the actual suffragettes who were pro-life) to stand up and cheer (for themselves) and quickly moving on towards the issue of abortion, slamming New York for their horrible and shameful decision to not just pass but celebrate the legalization of third-trimester abortions, and also slamming Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam for his comments regarding post-birth “abortion”, which is really just infanticide and no one can argue against that and maintain their humanity.
 
It was especially great when Trump condemned the comments by the disgusting Governor saying that Northam “would execute a baby after birth.” Execute is a very powerful word that no Democrat wants to hear in relation to abortion.
 
And that’s exactly what it is. Sentencing the newborn to be executed by a soulless physician and a psychologically deranged (or downright evil) “mother”.
 
Do you think Jeb Bush would’ve used that word? Or Mitt Romney? Or John McCain? Or John Kasich? Jeff Flake?
 
Trump is not afraid to call these people out for what they are. And the beauty of it is that he didn’t mention that it was the Democrats who were doing this. Everyone in that room and everyone watching knew perfectly well who was advocating for it, either openly or silently. Everyone knew perfectly well that it’s the Democrats who are okay with it. In this manner, he can hardly be considered divisive. Calling out a particular party over something can be considered divisive, but this call-out was subtle. We all knew who he was talking about and that they are advocating for this evil thing.
 
What pronounces that even more so is the fact that these people sat down with sullen faces as Trump asked Congress to ban late-term abortions. The Democrats did not cheer or applaud over him basically begging that Congress do something about this. They did not cheer when they heard that minorities and women were experiencing the lowest unemployment numbers ever recorded. They did not cheer when they heard that ICE and other border agents were arresting tons of sex, drug and human traffickers. They, at best, did not care and at worst actually hate that these things were happening.
 
But my overall favorite part of the entire speech was when Trump slammed socialism and proclaimed that America would never become a socialist country (it was made all the better by the camera cutting to Bernie Sanders as Trump slammed socialism).
 
The entire speech was simply fantastic, and more than three-quarters of viewers agree with me on this.
 
Thank you, Lord, for giving us such a great POTUS.
 
Philippians 4:19
“And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.”
 
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.

If there is any silver-lining for Democrat Governor of Virginia Ralph “Coonman” Northam this past week facing some backlash over his support and promotion of infanticide and the surfacing of a photo of him wearing blackface standing next to someone in a KKK robe and hood is that according to a Morning Consult Poll taken after these scandals, 50% of Virginia Democrats still support the racist baby-killer.
                                        
Granted, that number dropped by 20 points from 70, so good for the 20% of Virginia Democrats who have a conscience, but a full 50% of Virginia Democrats see the news regarding his support for killing babies, see the news regarding his racist picture, and find absolutely nothing wrong with that.
 
And no, it’s not the same as Kavanaugh or Trump. What people might say regarding the photo is that Kavanaugh did stuff in college too and we, conservatives, forgave him for it. That is completely wrong.
 
The difference between Northam and Kavanaugh is that there is EVIDENCE that Northam was a racist. It’s certainly backed up by the fact that he ADMITTED to being the one in the photo. With Kavanaugh, there was zero evidence (and still there is zero evidence) that he did the things that were alleged about him.
 
And it’s different from Trump because, despite what the Left says about him, he’s not racist. They claim the Wall is racist, or the “Muslim” ban is racist (it only applies to terror-related Middle East countries, and not even all of them), or that just about anything he says ever is racist. But like I mentioned previously, there is actual evidence to Northam being racist. And again, he admitted to it.
 
If someone did not do what they are accused of having done, they deny it, not admit it immediately and then deny it.
 
Not that it matters much to Virginia Democrats. 50% still support him, only 25% disapprove of him and only 24% are unsure about him. So 24% of Virginia Democrats are mulling over just how wrong it is for him to promote infanticide and being in a photo featuring him wearing blackface.
 
Contrast that with Independents going from 42% approval to only 20% and Republicans going from 31% (fascinating that he had so much support from Republicans before) to only 15%.
 
And this is not even mentioning that, upon Northam denying that he was in the photo after already having admitted to it, his defense was not simply that that wasn’t him. It was that it couldn’t have been him because he was wearing blackface at a different time and place.
 
This is what he said: “My belief that I did not wear that costume or attend that party stems, in part, by my clear memory of other mistakes I made in the same period of my life. That same year, I did participate in a dance contest in San Antonio in which I darkened my face as part of a Michael Jackson costume”.
 
That’s like saying: “You see, your honor, I couldn’t have possibly killed the victim at the time in question because I remember perfectly well that I was killing someone else at that time.”
 
But even with this pouring-gasoline-on-a-fire of a defense, half of Virginia Democrats still support him.
 
I may sound surprised, but I really shouldn’t be. If Democrats don’t abandon their own when someone sleeps with an intern, keeps tens of thousands of classified government emails in a server in a bathroom, drives into a lake and kills a woman, takes a photo with Louis Farrakhan, puts Japanese Americans in an internment camp during WWII, allows for the nuclearization of North Korea, allows for the nuclearization of Iran, insists to the Soviets that Reagan will not be in power forever and they should wait on Democrats to retake power for negotiations, leaves Americans to die in Benghazi, allows for the running of guns through the southern border and weaponizes government agencies to target and destroy an opposing candidate, then they aren’t likely to abandon a racist baby-killer.
 
The biggest of the scandals about Northam for Democrats is not the baby-killing scandal, but the racist one. Elected Democrats could not give one single damn about what he said regarding killing a born-alive baby. They only cared when he admitted to wearing blackface in a photo.
 
And not even because they think it’s bad to do that, but because they have to be able to keep one of their most used weapons: calling Republicans racist.
 
That’s the only reason they want him gone. They ignored the baby-killing comment because they secretly liked what he said and support it (not really all that secretly, but still) and are likely saddened over the fact that they have to try and insist he steps down from office over the photo.
 
The funny thing is that the longer he stays as governor, the worse it will be for Democrats because any conservative, especially Trump, can point to him and say “you guys call us racist, but you still have ‘Coonman’ running Virginia, killing babies left and right”.
 
I would normally say that, regardless of party, I would want such a horrible person to step down from office, but I don’t in this instance. I want him to remain. It’s not like Virginia’s next governor would be any better for the state or for babies. Democrats are moving towards normalizing and supporting full-on infanticide if it’s in the name of women’s “health” or “liberation” or some other crap.
 
So it’s best if he is stubborn enough to remain, so that he gives us another arrow in our quiver.
 
But regardless of what happens, it speaks volumes that half of Virginia Democrats still support and approve of Coonman. Again, not so surprising when knowing that there is next to no scandal that will make most Democrats abandon the person in question.
 
Bill Clinton did not become an inconvenience to the Democrats until around and just before the #MeToo movement. Obama is still revered as one of the greatest presidents they’ve ever had, despite all the evil and obvious things he did. FDR is considered a Democrat legend despite putting Japanese Americans in internment camps.
 
The reason they don’t abandon them over these things is because they are a brotherhood of evil. Now, I usually don’t lump in Democrat voters with these people, since most are either uninformed or altogether misinformed about things, but this is a national story, many other elected Democrats are calling for his resignation and there is plenty of information out there regarding this. There isn’t much of a chance of being uninformed or misinformed about this.
 
So being ignorant about this is not an option, which leaves us with two options: either these people are outrageously stupid or evil.
 
But again, what makes things worse is the fact that it’s the racist photo, not the advocating of infanticide, that is ruining his career. Quite frankly, had that photo not surfaced, he would probably be considered a Democrat hero in their circles. Openly, they still feel as though supporting this or advocating for this might be a step too far, but give them time and this will become mainstream.
 
These people fight to ensure everything that is evil is considered good so that it may become mainstream. They are rotten to the core.
 
And as far as the Democrat voters go, kudos to the ones that no longer support Coonman, but shame on the ones that still do for any given reason.
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
 
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.

If I asked you to think of what the most ridiculous claim for something being non-consensual could possibly be, what would you think of?
 
Well, up until today, to me, it would have to be the instance of that crazy Australian woman who said that parents and guardians need to ask the baby for consent before changing his or her diapers. However, I now have an even more ridiculous instance than that, if you can believe it.
 
A man in India named Raphael Samuel is reportedly suing his parents for having him without his consent. As in giving birth to him without his say-so.
 
Get all your laughs out now, because this will go from hysterical to pretty sad.
 
Raphael told The Print about what he’s doing and what he believes, saying: “I want to tell all Indian kids that they don’t owe their parents anything. I love my parents, and we have a great relationship, but they had me for their joy and their pleasure. My life has been amazing, but I don’t see why I should put another life through the rigmarole of school and finding a career, especially when they didn’t ask to exist.”
 
Look, if you don’t want to have kids, that’s your deal. But suing your parents because they WANTED to have you and HAVE LOVED YOU for your entire life is messed up. Even more messed up is suggesting to kids that they don’t owe anything to their parents. They owe EVERYTHING to them.
 
Parents feed, clothe, shelter, nurture, educate and love their kids not just because they have to, but because they want to and love doing so. They help you throughout your early life until you’re old enough to take care of yourself and have the ability to take care of someone else. Kids may not necessarily pay anything back to them, apart from also loving them and respecting and honoring them, but they absolutely owe pretty much everything to their parents.
 
The fact that this guy says he loves his parents and has a great relationship with them but still is looking to sue them for having him “without his consent” (I mean, seriously, how exactly would they have asked? How are they in the wrong here?) shows a disconnect in terms of logic and also a depreciation of life.
 
But there’s more. Samuel also created a Facebook page called Nihilanand regarding his message of people in India opting not to have children. According to The Blaze: “One photo reads, ‘A good parent puts the child above its wants and needs,’ but ‘the child itself is a want of the parent.’ Another calls parents ‘hypocrites’ and asks, ‘Isn’t forcing a child into this world and then forcing it to have a career kidnapping and slavery?’ Another posting reads, ‘The only reason your children are facing problems is because you had them.’”
 
And this is where things go from funny to sad. These are real people who legitimately hate that they were born into this world.
 
Addressing one of the posts, no it’s not kidnapping and “slavery” to have a child. A child is not forced to have a career when they grow up. It’s what they need to survive and prosper, but it’s not necessary. Any child can grow up to be homeless and starve. But how exactly is that a better alternative than having a career?
 
I take it a millennial wrote that post.
 
Also, I could easily address the last post regarding people’s problems and go into how the REAL only reason anyone has any problems is because of the Fall of Man in Biblical terms, but that can be discussed at another time.
 
Now, that’s not all that I have to tell you. The Print also notes a movement in India that is all about not having kids. It’s called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEM).
 
I know. Completely crazy. However, the biggest reason this one exists is because they fall prey to the ridiculous and almost Malthusian belief that more people is bad for the environment.
 
I won’t go into a whole lot of detail surrounding this, but it’s a really sad movement of people who do not appreciate life and choose not to have children for really stupid reasons.

But all of these things, combined with the fact that Ralph Northam was happy to promote infanticide, and you can’t help but notice what horrible depreciation of life there is in this world.
 
Raphael Samuel, though he says he has an amazing life, is suing his parents over the fact that they had him. It’s illogical to say you love life but also spite your parents for having you to the point you would sue them over it.
 
There’s an entire movement dedicated to looking towards the extinction of humanity, not necessarily through a forced way of violence, but still looks forward to such an event.
 
Ralph Northam promoted infanticide recently.
 
New York passed a law allowing for third-trimester abortions.
 
And the leader of that human extinction movement has a page where one message reads: “Do you think existence is pain, and not bringing a child into this world, is a guaranteed way to avoid unnecessary suffering to the child?”
 
That is insanely messed up. I get that they’re from India, where there are over a billion people, many who live in abject poverty, but every single life is important and all lives matter.
 
But this goes to show just how important it is to spread the Word of God and spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
Life can be painful but for someone who believes in Christ, it is less-so. Not because a Christian is less likely to face hardships, but because a Christian can face hardships and maintain a love of life in the name of Christ.
 
Let me tell you: I would much rather be poor in wealth and rich in spirit than rich in wealth and poor in spirit. The problem people like Samuel and people in that human extinction movement have is that they are likely both poor in wealth and in spirit. Money doesn’t buy happiness, but it can help it. I mean, have you ever seen a sad person on a jet ski?
 
Jokes aside, these people might not think there is much, if any, reason to live. Certainly no reason to bring a child into this world. That comes in part to lack of prosperity, but in far bigger part to lack of Christ in their hearts.
 
The reason I said I’d rather be poor in wealth and rich in spirit is because money isn’t everything. God is everything. But these Indians likely have neither in their lives, so they consider their lives to be rather worthless.
 
And I think that’s something a lot of people come across, even outside of India. Even people in America think their lives are worthless. I mean, how else can you explain people willing to support third-trimester abortions, or abortions altogether? How else can you explain people willing to hurt or even kill others simply over political disagreements? How else can you explain people being willing to take drugs in the first place?
 
Apart from sin, it’s the fact that people do not appreciate life anymore.
 
Tell me, why do you think people call birth “the miracle of life”? Well, there are a number of reasons. One, people used to be more openly Christian and openly accepting of Christianity. But more importantly, because women and children used to run far more risks during pregnancy and birth.
 
People in the past did not have the medical advancements that we enjoy today. Everything was more natural, more painful, and far more risky. So whenever a baby was successfully delivered, it was considered a miracle.
 
And it seems many people take life for granted now.
 
Not just the life of others, but even their own.
 
Life is seriously depreciated now-a-days. But this life was given to us by the Lord, who knew us before He even formed us in our mother’s womb. We should not take it for granted and we should definitely not be hoping for the extinction of humanity.
 
But I can understand why people do this: they lack Christ in their hearts.
 
A question many tend to ponder is the following: “what is the meaning of life?” In other words, why are we here? Well, because we are to serve our Creator. He created us for His Glory that we would walk with Him in His Righteousness.
 
But this is an answer that only comes to those who have Christ in their hearts. To those who do not, those who reject Christ, they ask this question and will never find the answer.
 
I know I said that this can be a discussion for another time, but it does fit here, so I will bring it up: the reason we have problems is because of the Fall of Man.
 
Before the Fall, Man walked with God in the Garden of Eden. The reason God asked where Adam was is not because He could not find him, but because he was not where he was supposed to be: walking with God. His disobedience and rebellion against God through the Fall caused the subsequent problems of humanity, the biggest one of which was death. A spiritual one, not just a physical one.
 
But Jesus Christ’s death at the cross for our sins is what allows us to be redeemed in the Sight of God, so that we may walk with Him once more, both in this life and in the next.
 
It is because of this that, even if we face hardships, we can still appreciate life. As far as these people go, they truly need Christ. I know I often say that everyone needs Christ and that the Left most definitely need Christ (because it’s true), but the source of this belief that life and existence are a pain is a distinct lack of Jesus Christ in people’s hearts.
 
Here’s hoping these people come to Christ sooner rather than later.
 
John 6:35
“Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.’”
 
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.

Recently, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network and she said that she believed God “wanted Donald Trump to become president.”
 
I have shared similar beliefs and even said as much in multiple articles where I talk about God and Trump. However, CNN Democratic strategist and network political commentator Maria Cardona replied to that statement by Sarah Sanders by saying that Trump is “the antithesis of Jesus Christ’s teachings.”
 
This is what the Leftist woman said regarding the Sarah Sanders interview and her comments: “Well, if He did, it is because He wanted to punish us for taking our democracy for granted, and for not ensuring that every person got out there to vote, and this is what we got. Look, I listened to the whole excerpt of the interview, in terms of what is available, and one huge word jumped out at me: hypocrisy. There was so much hypocrisy in what Sarah Sanders talked about… The bottom line is that I can’t imagine that God would put or would want somebody to be the commander in chief, the leader of the free world, somebody who doesn’t understand the Word’s truth, honesty, integrity, honor, forgiveness. I could go on and on about how this president is actually the antithesis of Jesus Christ’s teachings and anything that real Christians would put on the table as something and someone that they would believe in.”
 
Oh, boy, am I gonna have fun with this one.
 
There is a lot to cover, so bear with me here while I obliterate her arguments.
 
First of all, “taking our democracy for granted”? Obviously, that’s a reference to the Russian collusion narrative. But what is the 8th Commandment? Thou shall NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR! I know this was technically taught by Moses through God’s Commandments to the Israelites, but this still heavily applies to Christians and she mentions what real Christians would believe. This is part of that.
 
Second, “not ensuring that every person got out there to vote”? I don’t remember Jesus teaching anyone that they ought to get people to go out and vote. I must’ve missed it.
 
Third, is she really saying that it’s hypocritical to say that God wanted Trump to be president? How about saying that God did not want Trump to be President but instead would’ve wanted someone who would allow for abortion on-demand, open borders, lawlessness, crime, death, chaos, and everything the Left is looking to do?
 
Do you want to know what is hypocritical? Pretending you’re siding with God, all-the-while advocating for MURDER, which I’m guessing this woman does not know is part of the 5th commandment: thou shall NOT KILL!
 
Fourth, let’s reread something she said: “… I can’t imagine God would put or would want somebody to be the commander in chief, the leader of the free world, somebody who doesn’t understand the Word’s truth, honesty, integrity, honor, forgiveness…”
 
Really? What about Obama? God put Obama in the White House, for one reason or another. He definitely didn’t understand the Word’s Truth, honesty, integrity, honor, and forgiveness.
 
Also, I find it ironic that she, by saying this, alludes to the fact that she really doesn’t believe Trump is in the White House because God permitted it. If God did not want Trump in the White House, he wouldn’t be there. So this woman claims that Trump is the antithesis of Christ’s teachings and Sarah Sanders is hypocritical, but she herself alludes to the thought that Trump is there regardless of whether or not God wanted him there, which speaks to the belief that God is not actually omnipotent.
 
Finally, let’s go over some of Jesus’ teachings, shall we?
 
He taught to love your enemies. Who do you think actually does this? Christians or unbelievers? When an opponent is in peril, we pray for their safety, health, etc. Many prayed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be fine, myself included. Do I like her? No. Do I love her? It is what I am taught to do.
 
But when someone like, say, Margaret Thatcher dies, what do the unbelievers (Left) do? Celebrate. Bad things don’t even need to happen to someone for the Left to hate their enemies. Kathy Griffin posed with a “headless” Trump, ISIS style. Does that speak of love or hatred for her enemy?
 
When John McCain died, what sort of messages were we seeing? “The only good Republican is a dead one”. He was a Republican in name only, helping the Left more and more during his career, especially at the end, and still, such hatred was brought against him.
 
Jesus also taught not to judge others, lest we ourselves be judged by the same measure. But what does the Left do day in and day out? Remember the Covington Catholic kids? They judged them well before and even after information was made available. They wanted their lives and the lives of their families to be ruined over the misinformation from the media.
 
Here’s something else that Jesus taught that is quite important for this: Luke 6:46: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I tell you?” Cardona is adamant about explaining how unchristian Trump is and how unchristian people are for supporting him, and yet, she herself is no follower of Christ. She uses God as an argument when she does not know Him at all.
 
And perhaps one of the most important teachings regarding this particular woman and the whole of the Left who wish to use God as part of their arguments, Jesus also taught, in Luke 16:13: “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
 
How often do we hear Leftists use God as part of their argument, but simultaneously take money from organizations like Planned Parenthood? How often do they claim something to be immoral all-the-while making millions off a career that tends to pay only a few hundred thousand dollars a year?
 
So you see, it’s not only hypocritical of any Leftist to use God in an argument, it’s outright disgusting. They do not know Him, but still choose to use Him in arguments for evil.
 
Trump’s not perfect, obviously. But he is against abortion, so he’s against murder. He is against lawlessness, against injustice, against apathy (need I remind you Democrats refused to allow federal workers to be paid, which was likely the biggest reason Trump opened the government?).
 
Sure, he made mistakes in the past, but Jesus, as admitted to by Cardona, taught to FORGIVE!
 
The Apostle Paul, before converting and becoming an Apostle, hunted down Christians for execution. Moses murdered someone and spent decades in hiding. Sampson fell to the temptation of lust, one of the seven deadly sins. Abraham also committed adultery with his servant because he was too impatient to wait for God’s promise of a son. David slept and impregnated Bathsheba, the wife of one of his most loyal soldiers, and had said soldier die in battle.
 
Mankind’s history is fraught with sin. There is not one of us who is sinless; who is good enough to enter heaven of our own accord. We are redeemed by the Lord through the repentance of our sins and the embrace of Christ Jesus, with Him entering our hearts and being born again.
 
It doesn’t matter to me if Trump was a sleaze ball decades before he became President. If he’s asked for forgiveness from the Lord, it has already been granted to him. If he understands that what he did (if he even did those things. A porn-star is not exactly the most reliable of sources) was wrong and has asked for forgiveness, then he has been redeemed in the eyes of the Lord.
 
But let me tell you what God detests:
 
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.