Within the Christian religion, there are a number of different denominational beliefs that sometimes present challenges to people. For example, Catholics tend to pray to statues of the Virgin Mary or other Saints, asking them to essentially pass on a message to God that He may bless the praying people or help them to some capacity. And while there may be arguments in favor of doing this, I cannot help but think of this as a form of idolatry, because one is praying to statues, not God.
 
But while I am one to believe that while there are a lot of doctrinal problems within the Catholic Church, I believe there are those who are legitimately Christians and are actually saved among Catholics (though I highly doubt people like the Pope or other “progressive” leaders in the Church are saved).
 
I cannot say the same for anyone within the Union Theological Seminary, a non-denominational Seminary in New York.
 
You see, this past Tuesday, members of the UTS placed plants in the middle of a chapel and confessed their sins to them. “Today in chapel, we confessed to plants,” tweeted UTS, sharing also a picture of the ritual. “Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor. What do you confess to the plants in your life?”
 
Upon receiving tons of mockery and rebuking from actual Christians, UTS then tweeted: “When Robin Wall Kimmerer spoke at Union last year, she concluded her lecture by tasking us – and all faith communities – to develop new liturgies by which to mourn, grieve, heal and change in response to our climate emergency. We couldn’t be prouder to participate in this work. So, if you’re poking fun, we’d ask only that you also spend a couple moments asking: Do I treat plants and animals as divinely created beings? What harm do I cause without thinking? How can I enter into new relationship with the natural world?”
 
There is quite a bit to talk about here, but let’s begin with the obvious: THESE PEOPLE ARE COMMITTING IDOLATRY, A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST COMMANDMENT!
 
Taking aside the fact that these people are obviously environmentalist whackos, they not only violate God’s First Commandment, but also insult Him in doing this.
 
When we sin, we sin against God. Sin is to do evil in the sight of God. We do not sin against PLANTS. We may sin against other people by doing wrong by them, but we do not sin against plants because they are NOT EQUAL to us in the sight of God. That isn’t to say we should not care for the environment, because God tasked Man with taking care of the land in Genesis, but we should not elevate plants and animals to our level or sink Man to the level of plants and animals.
 
Genesis 1:26 reads as follows: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’” When God created Man in His own image, He also gave him dominion over all the earth and the things of the earth. In the hierarchy of natural creation, you find plants and animals below Man.
 
To imply that we can in any way sin against plants would be to consider plants to be equal or greater than Man. They are not, as we have dominion over them, given to us by All Mighty God. You don’t even have to be a Christian to read that far into the Bible, and these people somehow got it into their heads that Man is not above animals and plants?
 
They use language like “divinely created beings” to refer to animals and plants yet have no idea what that actually means. God created everything. All things have been divinely created. Are we not to enjoy and rule over that which God has given us dominion?
 
These people aren’t doing God any favors or pleasing God in the least. Aside from the fact that they said the plants sustain us (God sustains us, not the plants), they don’t even trust Him regarding the CLIMATE for crying out loud! Remember, they used the Leftist term of “climate emergency.” Apart from the fact that that’s b.s. largely because we are NOT in a “climate emergency” and are in the middle of what is considered the Modern Warm Period, something that is not exactly rare for the planet, these people believe that God is not powerful enough or sovereign to be able to control the climate of ONE planet.
 
This is the same thing I charge the socialist Pope of: not actually having faith in the Lord.
 
These people aren’t Christians. How could they be, when they don’t trust Him for their salvation and resort to CONFESSING TO PLANTS in order to feel satisfied with themselves?
 
Not to mention the focus on having a relationship with the natural world. Having a relationship with other people is not inherently a bad thing whatsoever. However, the focus should be on the supernatural, not on the natural. The focus should be having a relationship with the God who created the natural world, not the natural world itself.
 
To elevate the natural world in this manner is to do the same as worshiping a statue of a god or a golden calf. It’s utter idolatry, a detestable and abominable thing in the sight of God.
 
Plants cannot save you. Animals cannot save you. The natural world cannot save you. Man cannot save you. Only Christ can save you. These “Christians” have clearly forgotten that, if they ever knew it to begin with.
 
Exodus 20:1-6
“And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.’”
 
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.

Yesterday, I talked about a poll that said a good amount of people thought America’s best days were ahead of us, and that a good majority of people thought that if any changes were to be made to the Constitution, that they should further limit the power of the federal government, as opposed to giving it more power. Though I did not strictly mention this in that article, that is a very conservative ideology that is still shared amongst the majority of American voters.
 
Similarly, a recent Harvard/Harris poll showed that nearly three in four swing state voters, the kind that Democrats need to get in order to win elections, are against the idea of giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses.
 
But wait, there’s more. It’s not just a policy that is rejected by swing voters. Across the country, and even across the political spectrum, the idea is widely rejected. According to the poll, 72% of all U.S. voters said they opposed the idea of giving illegals driver’s licenses, which includes 74% of swing voters, as mentioned previously, 85% of Republican voters, 73% of moderate voters and even almost 60% of Democrats.
 
Across racial lines, nearly 66% of African Americans oppose the idea of giving licenses to illegals, as well as 76% of whites, and 57% of Hispanics.
 
And it’s not like this was a small survey. The sample size exceeded 2500 registered voters, which is a pretty big sample size for a survey.
 
This just goes to show just how out-of-touch and divorced from reality the Democrat Party is in terms of the policies they espouse. Even in the state of New York, where they made it legal for illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, 61% of New York voters opposed the idea, according to a Siena College poll from March 2018.
 
In that poll, 45% of Democrats opposed the idea of giving licenses to illegals, alongside 84% of GOP voters, 71% of swing voters, 73% of upstate residents, 60% of those in the working or middle class, 70% of Jewish New Yorkers, and 66% of Catholic New Yorkers.
 
Virtually every demographic is hugely opposed to the dangerous idea of giving licenses to illegal immigrants, which basically allows them to go to polling places and vote, even if they are not registered (and, of course, ARE NOT SOVEREIGN CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY).
 
Illegal immigration, and the fact that California has been giving illegals licenses since 2015, is what I think is a considerable part of the reason for the GOP to basically not exist in Commiefornia (as well as ballot harvesting and mysteriously finding more ballots with votes for the Democrat candidates after the polls closed).
 
Not that the Democrat Party cares one wit. If their policies aren’t popular with Americans, they’ll just import voters from Latin America, who are begging to come to the States and be taken care of by the government, and the Democrat Party is all-too happy to oblige them.
 
Like I have said multiple times in the past: their voting base is diminishing. They are pushing away longtime Democrat voters like union workers and working class white people in favor of illegal immigrants. They don’t care to get these people’s votes anymore because they can easily be replaced both in the job field and in the polls. As long as the Democrat Party has a permanent underclass that they can exploit and abuse, they don’t really care what most people think.
 
Back in May of this year, I shared an article talking about a poll that said that 90% of Venezuelans wanted Maduro ousted and for socialism to be eradicated in their country. Nine out of ten Venezuelans want a complete overhaul of their political and economic system. Do you think Maduro cares? NOT AT ALL!
 
He’s the guy in charge. So long as the military is on his side, he will be dictator in Venezuela until he dies, similar to Hugo Chavez. And after his death, an equally-socialist dictator will take his place. These people in power in Venezuela couldn’t give half a damn about what the people they rule over think. So long as their power is not at stake, they could not care less if almost 100% of Venezuelans hated their guts.
 
The same thing applies to the Democrats. It doesn’t matter if American voters disagree with a particular policy of the Democrat Party. Any policy that gives them more power is a policy they will fully embrace. And any person who disagrees with them will be cast out of the Party and replaced by either a brainwashed millennial or a family of illegal immigrants (and even some legal immigrants) seeking a hand-out.
 
The Democrat Party cares not for the environment, for women’s rights or freedom, for Latinos, for blacks, for minorities in general. They use all of these things to get as much power as they possibly can. Just look at the GND and the fact that AOC’s former chief of staff admitted that it wasn’t about climate change but economic change in America. All they care about is power and they will put on a face to fool people into following them and voting for them.
 
They claim to care for the illegal immigrants coming into the country. They do not, as evidenced by Obama putting them in cages. They only care about their ability to get these uneducated people to buy into everything the Democrats are selling. In the meantime, they can be put into ghettos and be forgotten until the next election.
 
These people thirst for power and are corrupted by it. Everywhere you see socialism, you see these people’s true colors. Maduro cares not for the people of Venezuela. Kim Jong-un cares not for the people of North Korea. Xi Jinping cares not for the people of China. The only difference between people like Maduro/Kim Jong-un/Xi Jinping and the Democrat Party in countries like the United States, or the ideological equivalents in Canada, the U.K., Germany, etc. is that Maduro, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping have enough power and stability in their power to not have to pretend to care about people.
 
Left-wing politicians in the States, in Canada and in Europe have to pretend that what they are doing is for the “greater good.” Communist dictators do not have to do that because they have all the power they can have.
 
This is the reality of the Left; this is who they are. They care only for themselves and their own power. They may say they care for other people, and they might actually believe they do, but at the end of the day, all that matters to them is how much power they have over the people they can rule over.
 
Illegal immigrants do not care for the American culture or way of life. This is something they share in common with the American Left. It’s a match made in Hell and these people should not be in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone entire cities, counties, states and the country.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I’ve said this multiple times before, but I will say it again because it’s particularly true: if you were to just watch the mainstream media, you would think we were on the brink of total collapse. From the MSM, we hear stories about climate change and how it’s all our fault; we hear stories about how Trump colluded with Russia (not anymore, really, but the attitude is still there); stories about how Kavanaugh sexually assaulted multiple women while in college (all of which are not corroborated by witnesses or evidence); and generally, that the world is getting worse and worse.
 
However, a considerable majority of Americans believe that the country’s best days are ahead of us, not behind us.
 
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 59% of nationwide voters believe America’s best days are ahead of us, in contrast to 41% who believe they are behind us (thanks, Obama).
 
This number includes 60% of conservatives AND liberals who say this, as well as 57% of moderates. 60% of Republicans and Democrats believe the future looks bright and so do 55% of Independents. Across racial demographics, 60% of Hispanics, 58% of whites and 53% of blacks agree with this optimistic idea.
 
And it’s not like this is new. The trend has shown this to be around the average, with 58% of people saying the same back in June and 57% back in March.
 
Interestingly enough, this comes in spite of the fact that only 35% of voters believe the federal government is doing a good job in terms of being a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What’s more, 71% believe the political system in America is broken, while only 16% disagree.
 
This is good news, when you think about it. Yesterday, I wrote an article talking about why socialism was so attractive and came to the conclusion that our capitalist system of economics has been socialized to the point where young people are suffering and the blame is put on capitalism itself. Similarly, one could argue that the socialization of our political system has bastardized it.
 
Yes, the Electoral College is still working wonders, but the fact that California is now an eternal shade of blue when only a few decades ago it at least had the capability of going red is quite the indication of political malpractice (as far as illegal immigration goes, let alone the other kinds of voter fraud present in states like Commiefornia). It also doesn’t help any that Congressmen on both sides of the aisle can be bought by lobbyists like Planned Parenthood and Wall Street, as well as other organizations.
 
Now, one might also be able to assume that at least some of those people who say the system is broken are socialists who claim Capitalism itself is broken. One might be able to do that, but they actually would be wrong to do so.
 
You see, Rasmussen also found that 81% of voters believe the reason for our system being broken is that our elected representatives AREN’T FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. And while 30% believe the Constitution needs a major overhaul, a considerable majority (56%) believe that any changes that occur should FURTHER PLACE LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which is the very thing the Constitution was written to do.
 
The framers of the Constitution all knew what tyranny was like and knew that the best way for people to live free is for the federal government ruling over them to be as limited as possible without making it completely useless.
 
The literal preamble of the Constitution reads as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
 
The entire point of the Constitution is to insure the liberty and power of the PEOPLE of the United States, not the government.

• The first amendment is, first and foremost, about the freedom of religion, followed by freedom of speech, of the press, to peaceably assemble and to petition the government.

 

• The second amendment is about the people’s rights to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

 

• The third amendment is about allowing people not to be forced to quarter soldiers into their homes if they do not wish it (it really was more relevant back in the days of the Revolution when the Red Coats were allowed to stay in people’s homes even if the people did not want it, but still important).

 

• The fourth amendment is all about people’s right to not be unfairly searched without a warrant, both on their person or in their property.

 

• The fifth amendment is all about people’s right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves and not being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

 

• The sixth amendment is all about people’s right to a speedy and fair trial

 

• The seventh amendment is all about a right to a civil trial by jury.

 

• The eight amendment is all about protecting the people from cruel and unusual punishments not befitting the crime they committed.

 

• The ninth amendment is all about the rights of the people not being limited to the ones simply listed in the Constitution. Or in other words, people have liberty and rights even if they are not particularly mentioned in the Constitution.

 

• The tenth amendment is all about powers that are not delegated to the federal government (that are listed in the various articles before the amendments are listed) belonging to the States and to the people of those states (the reason why states can have a constitution of their own, so long as the state constitution does not infringe on the national constitution).

 
In each of the first ten amendments, what is known as the Bill of Rights, we find rights and freedoms and powers that belong exclusively to We the People of the United States of America, if not to the state governments to protect the states from the possibility of a tyrannical President.
 
This is why I say that no matter how socialist the Left wishes for us to be, the United States Constitution stands in the way. So long as there are people in power who are just, the Constitution will remain relevant to everyone.
 
Of course, there are more amendments to the Constitution than the ones talked about in the Bill of Rights, but the general principle still applies: the federal government is necessarily limited in power.
 
The Founding Fathers knew that it had to be limited in order to keep it from becoming tyrannical like the King of England they had fought and beaten. The Bill of Rights is there in order to limit the power the federal government can have on the individual states and on the people of the United States.
 
And with 56% of people saying if any changes are to be made, they should be to FURTHER limit the government, as we think it has gotten too big, that only tells you the type of mentality we still have.
 
So the overall climate in people’s minds, despite all the doom and gloom stuff shared by Democrat politicians and parroted by Left-wing media sources, seems to be that America’s best days are ahead of us, the government is cripplingly flawed and it should be limited in power.
 
This only further tells me that the far-Left people you see so often on Twitter and other social media are extremely fringe groups that do not reflect the overall mindset and views of America.
 
Romans 15:13
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
 
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.

Perusing over the different news outlets for me to find something to write about, I found a very interesting piece by Rachel Bovard on The Daily Caller titled: “The Kids Are Right: Our Economic System And The Threats To Freedom.”
 
In the article, she says the various supposed reasons for millennials to be turning to Socialism, such as “They’re ungrateful and greedy, they don’t understand what it is, Instagram makes us covet other people’s stuff, or… millennials pick dumb and unemployable majors in the liberal arts when they should study math or learn to code,” are really unfounded and not actual reasons that tackle the overarching problem.
 
I understand where she’s coming from here, but I don’t totally agree with what she says. Regarding the “ungrateful and greedy” reason, I agree. It’s not that kids are ungrateful and greedy. There are plenty of people who are, indeed, ungrateful and greed has been around for millennia, so it’s not strictly a flaw unique to this young generation, but that ungratefulness, which does appear at least in a good amount of people, stems from the second reason: ignorance.
 
“They don’t understand what it is” and it’s entirely true. If you remember, Rasmussen had a poll back in June, which I talked about, that found 84% “of voters nationwide have a favorable opinion of free markets,” while 41% also “have a favorable view of Socialism.” Like I said in the article talking about this, it becomes clear that the problem here is ignorance as to what Socialism actually is because the Left promotes it as this fantastic system where everyone does great, has everything they need with no excess, is very happy and fulfilled. That is, as proven by history, a massive lie, but it keeps getting told generation by generation.
 
So while ignorance may not necessarily be the only factor here, it is important to note that it is, in fact, a considerable factor because ignorance on a subject opens the way for misinformation. If you don’t know what Socialism is, you could be told the wrong thing about it and believe it, particularly at an early age when you trust the information given to you by authority figures such as parents and teachers unquestioningly.
 
As far as covetousness goes, I agree with her that that “reason” is no reason at all because covetousness has been around for ages (and is part of the Ten Commandments not to covet that which is not yours), though I have personally never heard anyone use that argument, but fair enough if she has.
 
And picking unemployable majors is, I think, also a factor, once again disagreeing with her. When you pick to learn about “Gender Studies” as a major, you find yourself hating men (even if you are, yourself, a man), hating capitalism and wishing for a full-on communist takeover of the government and our lives. That, again, stems from ignorance on socialism. But more importantly, that also means that no good and useful skills have been learned by the students apart from how to play the victim at every turn, so no real employment opportunities rise up.
 
But moving on, Rachel says that “channeling self-interest into capitalism, allowing free consumer choice, letting the market respond naturally to demand, has served us well.” This comes after acknowledging the fact that the average American earns 10x more than the rest of the world. However, she argues that “there are cracks. And it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge that people – especially millennials – are falling through those cracks, and that scoffing that the system is fine, and they should stop whining and read more Milton Friedman, ignores the problem that parts of the system may indeed be out of whack.”
 
This is where I also have to disagree, but the interesting thing is that she also sort of disagrees herself later down the line. Before I come to the defense of capitalism (which I will, so don’t worry), allow me to share the arguments Rachel makes that are actually valid.
 
The millennial generation, she writes, “came of age just as the economy was slipping over the cliff of the Great Recession. We watched as the government took pains to care for the billionaire bankers and auto giants, but not the 401k’s of our parents and grandparents. The left told us to Occupy All The Things, and the right told us to sit down and mind our betters. Neither made sense.”
 
“We are very likely the first generation who will not create more wealth than our parents. In fact, we’re struggling to even make it to the middle class. After years of being told that college was the ticket to success, we’re drowning in debt, thanks to tuition increasing over 100% since 2001. We still can’t afford health care. In fact, we can’t even make enough money to get married, have kids, and buy a house – the very steps conservatives say will save us, and save civil society. Perhaps relatedly, suicide is now the second leading cause of death among ages 10-34. And we’re killing ourselves on opioids. Given all of this, is it any wonder even a vague understanding of socialism sounds better?”
 
However, as she herself acknowledges literally following that paragraph, these are the effects of government intrusion into the free market. You see, Rachel follows that by saying: “Socialism is no cure, but if we’re going to win back millennials, it has to start acknowledging the problems. Saying ‘free market’ really loudly isn’t going to suffice when much of what plagues millennials is linked to government manipulating the so-called free market – in many cases, with backing from the right.”
 
And THAT is the real crux of the problem. We are a capitalist nation, no doubt. However, slowly but surely, we have socialized our system more and more through government intervention. As Rachel herself acknowledges, the reason for hikes in tuition, and therefore, student debt, can be traced back to federal involvement in student loans.
 
And while a college education may have been considered a meal ticket back when the generation that lived through the Great Depression was saying this, it’s no longer the case for a variety of reasons. For one, it’s simply supply and demand. There is quite the supply in college degrees and graduates, so the demand for it goes down. A college education used to be a meal ticket because most people were NOT college-educated.
 
Another reason is actually the reason ignored earlier: that kids are picking dumb degrees. While I don’t know how many people actually pick those out of the number of people who opt instead for economics degrees or law degrees, etc., the fact that they are so encouraged is an indication that that’s a problem. No one is in need, or demand, of someone with a degree in “Gender Studies” or “Women’s Studies” or “LGBT Studies” or whatever else there may be. Those jobs, if there are any out there, are very few, and so, the people with those degrees don’t find the employment that they want, instead having to settle for minimum wage jobs and as such, subsequently demand higher wages for those jobs because they can’t get the jobs they hoped they would get.
 
But the biggest hurdle in young people’s way is student loan debt, which is why 2020 Democrat candidates have made it a top issue (even though they helped create the problem).
 
Rachel also goes on to acknowledge that health care is “an uncompetitive cluster made worse by the government. Financiers on Wall Street benefit and manufacturing jobs disappear as our economic policies allow China to use the dollar against us. The government-backed housing giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, egged on by lawmakers who did nothing in response to their role in the market crash a decade ago, are again loading up financial markets with subprime mortgages. Protecting the status quo is a wholly inadequate answer to the socialist surge when it’s the status quo that has utterly failed millennials.”
 
And I can’t really argue against that because she’s right. What has caused the Great Recession, and what has caused millennials to turn to a different idea, a different “solution”, is in large part due to the socialization of our capitalist system of economics.
 
The problem is that not enough people realize this. There are people who think everything is fine and the status quo should remain (usually, these are the NeverTrump types) and there are those who say the “system is broken” regarding capitalism when the system itself is not broken either in theory or in practice, but it’s being slowly replaced by a system these people argue is not broken: socialism.
 
There are people who will argue that capitalism no longer works, or that while it may have worked for a while, it’s “outstayed its welcome.” Both are explicitly untrue. Capitalism works, but not when it gets infected by socialist policies.
 
For the most part, as it stands, we are doing quite well economically. With record-low unemployment rates across the board, people are living better off today than at any point during the Obama presidency. That is not by accident. Trump’s sweeping deregulations, coupled with tax cuts passed back in late 2017 that went into effect in 2018 and are still around today – all of which are capitalistic policies – are helping our economy.
 
What needs to happen is the reverse of what millennials think needs to happen: we need to be even MORE capitalistic, not less and we certainly need to avoid socialism like the plague that it is.
 
Now, Rachel finishes her article by saying the following: “Capitalism has made us the richest and freest country in the world. But those on the right need to confront the flaws and excesses in the system – and posit means to address them – if they have a prayer of defending it with the rising generation.”
 
I agree with her first point, but she makes the mistake of conflating the socialistic policies she herself acknowledged were the cause for the problems millennials face as being part of the capitalist system itself. That is a fatal flaw if one is to defend capitalism and excoriate socialism.
 
The only flaws, as far as I can tell, within the system of capitalism reside in the people that employ it. We are an imperfect people, and as such, cannot create and certainly cannot perfectly employ a perfect system. But capitalism is far and away the best economic system and as close to perfection as one can get. A pure, free market is without a doubt the best way for a society to become wealthy and live well, not only freely.
 
Now, before you call me a hypocrite because I want the Trump government to intervene regarding social media, allow me to reiterate my overall point regarding that particular problem: there is no free market when it comes to social media. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are all monopolies and can basically do whatever they want to whomever they want. If they want to silence someone on the Right, they very-well can. No other social media company will prop up and be able to reasonably compete with these tech giants precisely because of the type of monopoly status and power they hold.
 
Monopolies are, by definition, anti-free markets. Monopoly definition: “the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.” It’s corporate socialism, which is why I argue in favor of regulation regarding these tech giants.
 
Capitalism, free market economics, are the absolute best way for people to live. But ignorance, coupled with misinformation and the gradual socialization of our system to cause the problems we are seeing and blaming it on the system itself is the reason for people to be turning to socialism: it SOUNDS like a better alternative to the status quo.
 
But again, it’s that precise system’s policies that have led to these problems in the first place. Not enough people know this and so, it becomes difficult to challenge the ideologies of the Left, at least in as far as successfully convincing people goes.
 
Capitalism isn’t the problem. The gradual socialization of Capitalism, aka Socialism itself, is the problem. And as such, Capitalism, and more of it, is the solution (as well as returning to God, but that’s a topic for another time).
 
James 3:17
“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The third night of the Democrat debate took place late last week, and while there is an awful lot to talk about, I would like to focus on what I consider to be the biggest takeaway of the entire debate: Robert Francis O’Rourke announcing to everyone watching or even somewhat paying attention that he fully intends to confiscate people’s semi-automatic rifles by saying: “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15s and AK-47s” on the debate stage.
 
And while the audience may have cheered at his announcement (they are all far-Leftists, so this is no surprise at all), others were not quite so sure, including MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who commented that Beto’s position was “extreme” and “I don’t know where you get away with that.”
 
Certainly, no one in the world outside of Leftistan was exactly thrilled about that declaration. Texas State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R), upon reading Beto’s tweet that essentially copied his on-stage declaration, replied: “My AR is ready for you Robert Francis.”
 
Beto, being the ever-so reasonable person he is, believed that to be a direct death threat against him: “This is a death treat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn’t own an AR-15 – and neither should anyone else.”
 
Cain, in return, replied: “You’re a child, Robert Francis.”
 
For this exchange, Robert Francis reported Rep. Briscoe to the FBI for “threatening” him.
 
However, I doubt that will actually go anywhere, considering it’s not illegal to say something like that.
 
Back in 1969, the US Supreme Court presided over a case regarding something similar. During a political rally in 1966, a young black man said the following: “They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as a 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday morning. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”
 
The young man, for his comments, was arrested at that debate and the jury found the young man to have broken the law by “knowingly and willfully” threatening the President. However, the young man’s trial counsel had moved for a judgment of acquittal, on the grounds that the jury found “absolutely no evidence on the basis of which the jury would be entitled to find that [the young man] made a threat against the life of the President.”
 
This case went on for years until it reached the Supreme Court in 1969 known as Watts v. United States, which decided that such a comment, while crude, did not constitute knowingly and willfully threatening the President of the United States and is protected under the First Amendment, in large part due to the fact that the young man had no actual intention on doing as he said.
 
It’s for this same reason that someone like Joe Biden can say he would like to have a fist-fight with Trump and not be criminally prosecuted.
 
But regardless, I think Beto’s overall declaration is the bigger story here. He threatened, enthusiastically, to violate the 2nd Amendment and take people’s guns by force, as his comment implied.
 
Beto went on further, however, during the debate. He was asked to elaborate by ABC News host David Muir, asking him if he was proposing a confiscation, and Beto replied: “I am, if it is a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”
 
Whether he intended to or not, he gave away the fact that he wouldn’t stop at AR-15s. Literally EVERY SINGLE WEAPON is a weapon designed to kill people on a battlefield. This not only includes shotguns and pistols, but even knives.
 
I don’t blame Briscoe for sending that tweet whatsoever. This is a threat to our right to bear arms by an Irish Hitler.
 
Now, Beto stands absolutely no chance whatsoever at becoming the nominee of the Democrat Party, but this open declaration of confiscation is similar, to me, as Bernie’s open declaration of being a socialist back in 2016.
 
Slowly, but surely, the mask is continuing to slip off and we are seeing these people for their true colors. They don’t care for your rights – your rights to protect yourself and your family; your rights to express yourself if you have a differing opinion; your rights to not be forced into doing something you don’t want to do like baking a cake for a gay wedding; your rights to even have a chance at life outside the womb.
 
But for as much damage as the Left intends to do to all our other freedoms, the only thing standing in their way is the 2nd Amendment, which is why they are so adamant about getting rid of it.
 
Now, there are a lot of things that stand in the way of the Left being able to do that and being anywhere near as successful as they want to be.
 
First and most importantly, it is going to be pretty much impossible to repeal the 2nd Amendment. As I mentioned in my article talking about why we are a Republic, not a Democracy, it is extremely difficult to change the Constitution: “A simple majority cannot add onto or eliminate an amendment in the Constitution… In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment, it takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate, and then three-fourths of the states in order to change the Constitution at all.”
 
Even in a worst-case scenario where a Democrat wins in 2020 and they retake the Senate and keep the House, it will be unlikely they will gather a two-thirds majority in both chambers. As it stands, there are Democrats in the House who want to vote to impeach Trump because he constantly hurts their feelings, but Nancy Pelosi knows that going for that at this point would be utter political suicide for the Democrat Party largely because of the Democrats who won in Purple or Red states.
 
Similarly, if Democrats in Red or Purple states have to be forced to vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment, that would also be political suicide, not simply because it’d be unlikely they’d get two-thirds votes (depending on how much they’d be able to win), but because it’s unlikely three-fourths of states would agree.
 
States like Commiefornia and New York, maybe, but they’d be lucky to get 25% of the states to agree, let alone 75%.
 
And even if they somehow managed to pull off the impossible and repealed the 2nd Amendment, that will hardly matter. How many more people are out there like Briscoe who are law-abiding citizens but wouldn’t be willing to give up their guns?
 
Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t work towards getting rid of guns at any capacity and would only spark a civil war, which is the last thing Democrats want if they wish to have as much power as they can.
 
But regardless of the actual possibility of repealing the 2nd Amendment, it’s becoming more and more clear what these people stand for. Kamala Harris wishes to do something similar with an unconstitutional executive order, so it’s not like Beto is alone in his desire to strip people of their legal guns.
 
And again, while neither Beto nor Kamala will get anywhere near the nomination, and while the three people actually likely to be the nominee might try and push back against that sort of thing, it’s clear where these people stand.
 
The people in the crowd cheered for Beto, which will make them think this is what people in America in general want. It’s not. The people that cheered do not themselves have guns, or at least are ignorant enough to think that the guns they do have (that are not AR-15s) will not be next on the chopping block.
 
The Left can no longer use the talking point they’ve been using for decades that they don’t want to take away people’s guns. Even Beto used that talking point back in 2018 when he was running against Ted Cruz. He insisted that people would be allowed to keep their legally-purchased AR-15s. What a difference one year makes, right?
 
Not really. These people have been wanting to take away our guns for decades because they know perfectly well that that’s what’s really standing between them and the authoritarian power they crave. They just made a point to not be honest about what they wanted to do.
 
Obama and Hillary wanted to do the same thing, but weren’t dumb enough to announce it to the country.
 
But make no mistake, folks. This is who these people are: sick, twisted, demented, power-hungry maniacs who care not for your rights, security and liberty if they at all stand in the way of them being able to dictate the way you live and have complete dominion over you. They seek to hold the power of God in their hands, though they claim not to believe in Him.
 
And they will fail miserably.
 
John 3:20
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This really shouldn’t be so surprising, considering the last article I wrote was literally about The New York Times blaming airplanes for 9/11, revering Mao Zedong as a “great revolutionary figure” and started the 1619 project to revise our country’s founding to have been on the basis of slavery rather than liberty, as it actually was, but a recent study truly puts the mainstream media on the hot seat. The study was conducted by Bospar, a boutique PR firm, and in collaboration with Propeller Insights, a market research company, and it surveyed 1,010 American adults.
 
What the study found was that “more than 95% are troubled by the current state of media.” No, that’s not a typo. Over 95% OF AMERICANS HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE MODERN MEDIA! The reasons they give for people’s concern are as follows:

• Reports on fake news – 53%
• Reporting gossip – 49%
• Lying spokespeople – 48%
• Celebrity opinions – 36%
• Left-wing agendas – 34%
• Gotcha journalism – 33%
• Right-wing agendas – 32%
• Puff pieces in exchange for access to other important interviews – 31%
• Blind items being reported in the news – 30%
• Hit pieces – 21%
• Rise of independent contributors versus on-staff media – 14%

 
What’s more, a full two-thirds (67%) believe “ethics in journalism will be worse during the 2020 presidential campaign.”
 
And when asked “about the impact unethical journalism has on the country, Americans cited four chief problems”:

• 64%: It creates division and partisanship
• 63%: It fuels inaccuracies
• 60%: It incites hate
• 57%: It creates fear

 
To repeat, over 95% of people said they were concerned with “the current state of the media”. Considering this is regarding the ethics of journalism, this is quite a horrendous number for the media. However, this does include any and all kind of media, whether it be the NYT or Breitbart News.
 
Looking over the list of reasons for concern, we find that reports on fake news is at the top. That most definitely is a bad sign for the fake news media, considering that is basically Trump’s catch phrase at this point. Now, it’s important to note that things were, as always, divided down party lines. For example, Democrats were more likely to say that cable news anchors and journalists were ethical as opposed to Republicans, according to the study. This makes sense, considering cable news anchors and journalists spread Left-wing propaganda and Democrats tend to side with that sort of thing far more often than Republicans.
 
But a considerable amount of people are very concerned about fake news; about the validity of any particular report and the honesty of the people giving these reports. It’s probably for this reason that Fox News, and more specifically, pro-Trump shows, have enjoyed great ratings over the past couple of years. Sean Hannity’s show was the top-rate cable news show, followed by Tucker Carlson, and Fox News overall had 10 of the top 15 highest-rated cable news shows in the last quarter.
 
Now, allow me to share with you just a few headlines from news organizations around the world pertaining to the “issue” of climate change:

• From The U.K. Telegraph: “Britain warming faster than average.”
• From China Daily News: “China warming faster than global average.”
• From CBC (Canadian news): “Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds.”
• From a Swedish news org: “Sweden’s temperature is rising more than TWICE as fast as the global average.”
• From an Australian news org: “Australia Is Heating Up Faster Than The Rest Of The World.”
• From a Swiss news org: “Global warming to impact Switzerland at twice average speed, warns researcher.”

 
Rinse and repeat for other areas like Russia, Singapore, Finland, Spain, etcetera, etcetera.
 
Now, I don’t know about you, but I think something smells rather fishy here. If the Law of Non-contradiction tells me anything, is that all of these contradicting things cannot all be true at the same time and in the same relationship.
 
If Britain is warming at a faster rate than the global average, then the same cannot possibly be the case for China or any of the other countries listed. That is utterly illogical. And thus, every one of these headlines is likely to be false. Now, there is the possibility that ONE of them is true, but there is no definitive way to discern that from the information given. Each of these has a story that says why and how the particular country or region is warming at a faster rate than the global average, sometimes specifically twice as fast. Each of these stories says something to explain and “prove” the title right, but put them all together and you find it all outright impossible to happen. If they are warming at a faster rate than the global average, there would have to be entire countries and regions that would have to bring down the average in order for this to be true. And no one in the media in any particular country would dare suggest that their country is doing better climate-wise than another country.
 
Of course, this being in different countries, for the most part, only the people living in the particular countries would read their particular headlines and begin to panic (because that is the objective, as the Left’s 16-year-old Swedish puppet admits). But if you and I are looking at these headlines, we will call out the dishonesty of these organizations.
 
And this is just regarding climate alarmism. Regarding the economy, allow me to share two rather interesting news alerts someone shared on Twitter:
 
From The New York Times: “The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in August, a sign that the labor market is holding up despite continuing trade war with China.” Not too bad, I’d say.
 
From the Washington Post: “The U.S. economy added 130,000 jobs in August, as hiring slowed sharply amid concerns that the economy is deteriorating.” Trying to spin the good news of jobs growth into something bad to try and incite fear in people’s minds about the possibility of a recession.
 
Both talk about pretty much the same thing, but the second one specifically tries to continue using the narrative of a looming recession.
 
These are but a few of the many, MANY examples of the fake news media delivering fake news. Only go back to when Brett Kavanaugh was being grilled by the fake news media about sexual assaults that he didn’t do and there was no evidence for them.
 
Only go back THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS TO SEE THESE PEOPLE OPENLY ACCUSING TRUMP OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIA TO STEAL THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION to see evidence of the fake news these people deliver on a daily basis.
 
Two and a half years of Russian collusion, a couple of months of “believe all women” and can you really blame people for thinking ethics in the media is in the toilet?
 
These people are not ethical in the least. They are bloodsucking leeches, who will stick to any story, no matter how ridiculous, to pass their agenda.
 
Trump won the election? Nah, he cheated. A Republican won a closely-contested special election this week? Trump actually lost because it shouldn’t have been even close, even though they were saying for weeks prior that that election was a “bellwether test” for 2020. Brett Kavanaugh is about to be approved to be in the Supreme Court? Take a woman who knows how to cheat a lie detector test because she’s a psychologist and have her pretend to be the victim using the most innocent-sounding voice one can possibly use to try and demonize the guy to protect abortion.
 
Do you want to know why there is so little faith in the ethics of journalism today? Because everything is political and virtually everything can be counted on to be a lie to one extent or the other. If there is good news, they won’t be delivered if it doesn’t help the media. If there is bad news, it’s a sure-fire sign that Trump is toast. If there is no news, they will be made into massive news.
 
There no longer are any ethics in journalism, at least in the type that the fake news media practices. Any story that helps their narrative, no matter how outlandish and poorly-sourced, is made into news. And when called out on it, no repercussions will occur because truth and objectivity is no longer a standard. It’s about delivering as much fake news that helps the Leftist narrative as possible and seeing what sticks.
 
Proverbs 13:5
“The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In the world of the Fake News Media, it can sometimes be difficult to discern just which one is the biggest joke out there. CNN is up there, when they threaten meme-makers with lawsuits and run Russia-collusion stories for two and a half straight years with zero evidence to show for it. But I think The New York Times has pulled ahead in recent times.
 
Of course, I am talking about the horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad week the people at the NYT had recently. First, the NYT Archives page remembered the death of Chinese Communist dictator Mao Zedong, who died on September 9th, 1976. They did this by tweeting: “Mao Zedong died on this day in 1976: The Times said he ‘began as an obscure peasant’ and ‘died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.’”
 
Two things they said about him, one of them wrong and the other one REALLY wrong for different reasons.
 
First, Zedong was never, himself, a peasant. He was born to a farmer who was once a peasant but became “affluent as a farmer and grain dealer,” according to the Encyclopedia Britannica’s page on Mao Zedong. To say he was a peasant is historically inaccurate.
 
But that’s, of course, not the worst part. The second part was remembering him as “one of history’s great revolutionary figures.” He was a “great revolutionary figure” in the same way Hitler and Lenin were. That is to say: not at all.
 
He led a communist revolution in China, became dictator of the land, and subsequently murdered 45 million people thanks to his “Great Leap Forward” policy. This is something even THE WASHINGTON POST acknowledges.
 
Yeah, kinda “forgot” to mention that part, didn’t they?
 
But as bad as that is, I believe it pales in comparison to what they did on the 18th anniversary of 9/11.
 
You may have heard a little something about it, as it was all over Twitter and conservative media (apart from the actual remembrance of the victims and events of 9/11).
 
The New York Times posted and promptly deleted the following tweet: “18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died.”
 
Of course, people pointed out the lunacy of that tweet. It wasn’t airplanes that “took aim” at the towers. It was radical Islamic terrorists. But then again, we really shouldn’t be so surprised at the sort of language and rhetoric these people use.
 
These are people who might actually believe guns can float around and shoot and kill people all on their own, erasing any of the blame on the actual shooter and focusing on the gun.
 
I have already pointed out how shootings tend to not be paid much attention to if the shooter is someone who hurts their narrative. They talked far more at length about the El Paso shooter because he targeted Hispanics than they did about the openly-socialist Dayton shooter. And back when a Berniebro shot at Republicans during a Congressional baseball game, injuring Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), they made the concerted effort not to mention the very intentions the shooter had: to kill as many Republicans because he bought Bernie’s rhetoric that Republicans would kill people by taking away their healthcare.
 
Similarly, since 9/11 is the biggest terrorist attack in American history, and since it was perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists, any and all semblance of radical Islam must be taken out of the remembrance of the day, because political correctness deems it so.
 
Never mind that it was RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS who hijacked the planes that flew into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field (though that last one was because the passengers were aware of what happened in New York and realized their plane also got hijacked and bravely fought the terrorists, but ultimately all died). Never mind that radical Muslims all over the world CELEBRATED the attacks in their hatred of America. No, we must avoid talking about radical Islamic terrorism when talking about THE BIGGEST TERRORIST ATTACK IN U.S. HISTORY.
 
It wasn’t terrorists who did it, you see; it was the planes. As though it was one massive accident and no ill-intent was present whatsoever. What an absolute joke of a news organization. The fact it’s the NEW YORK Times, of all organizations, makes it all the sadder. The attack was in THEIR CITY. Their residents and citizens WITNESSED IT HAPPENING LIVE. And they have the nerve to avoid placing the blame where it belongs?
 
And their updated tweet wasn’t much better either: “18 years after nearly 3,000 people were lost, families of those killed in the terror attacks will gather at the 9/11 memorial. There will be a moment of silence at 8:46 a.m., then the names of the dead – one by one – will be recited.”
 
Nearly 3,000 people weren’t “lost”. Again, that erases culpability and makes it appear sort of like an accident or at least like it wasn’t intentional. They were TAKEN by these radical Islamic monsters.
 
The New York Times is incredibly adamant about revising history to suit their agenda. Only a couple of months ago, they launched the 1619 project, if you remember that one. As a reminder, that project aimed (or aims, if they are still pushing it) at revising the history of our country’s very own founding to push the narrative that we were founded on slavery. To say that we weren’t founded on the basis of liberty for all, but that we were actually founded on the basis of slavery due to the very first slave ship arriving in the New World – that is the goal.
 
In the title, I put the word “forgot” in quotation marks because this wasn’t by accident in the least bit. At this point, it’s a pattern of revisionist history:
 

• Airplanes flew into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania; but no mention of the actual hijackings or who perpetrated the attacks.
• Mao Zedong was a poor, relatable character who was a “great revolutionary figure” for the people of China; no mention of the tens of millions he and his communist policies subsequently killed.
• America was founded the moment the first slave ship arrived in the New World; no mention of the fact that there was no United States at the time, and quickly and nonchalantly glossing over the fact that the slaves were brought by the Portugese and sold to Brits in Virginia – no Americans to be seen here.

 
And it all fits perfectly into their agenda: protecting radical Islamic terrorists even when they kill people (and even when they kill another Leftist “protected” group: gay people), protecting the image of one of history’s most brutal dictators and mass murderers, and insisting that our country’s greatness is illegitimate and bought by the blood of slaves and poor people.
 
All b.s. of the highest order, but that’s how delusional these people are.
 
The New York Times is a massive joke of an organization, and that’s saying something in comparison to all the other fake news organizations. Fredo Cuomo has more dignity than these people.
 
Proverbs 19:9
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In today’s media, if you aren’t hearing about how President Trump did something that makes him a racist or is an “impeachable offense”, you’re hearing about how we are destroying our planet with all our fossil fuels and our capitalism and our very existence and we need to do something like electing Democrat after Democrat in order to stop it before the 666th Doomsday clock runs out. It’s tiring and it’s all b.s., but one might come to ask the simple question of how and when did this all begin?
 
This article, if it seems familiar to you, is similar in nature to a couple of other ones where I either talked about when the first climate change warning came about (as far as we know) and the other talking about how much more the Left can say that a particular climate conference or an election is our “last chance to save the planet”.
 
The first article talked about the first warning from someone in general (to refresh your memory, it was in 1864 that the first climate change warning came up, as far as we know) and the second mentioned a number of media articles that repeated the same phrase of “last chance” to save the planet or reverse course, etc. But this one specifically talks about how far back the media has reported on particular climate change talking points. Of course, given the title spoils the surprise, the media has been doing this since at least the 1930s (again, as far as we know).
 
ClimateDepot.com shared an article that showed various pieces from the media when they talked about something in relation to climate change, at any capacity.
 
The first and earliest example comes from a Jefferson City Post-Tribune paper published on May 2nd, 1932 in Jefferson City, Missouri. The article was titled: “Melting Glaciers Would Flood Earth’s Big Cities.”
 
Sound familiar to you? It’s one of the many talking points the Left often makes: “we are melting the arctic glaciers with our capitalist system and as a result, major cities throughout the world will be flooded.”
 
The article itself started with something we are all very familiar with: “Just raise the average temperature of the earth two or three degrees and you can bid goodbye to all the big cities on earth. Glaciers will melt and oceans will rise… New York, London, Paris, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Shanghai – all gone.”
 
Well, nearly 90 years later and the glaciers are NOT melting (quite the opposite, actually) and no big city on earth has suffered from such major flooding (apart from cities like Houston, which has flooded time and time again since even BEFORE it was founded in June of 1837, but not once as a result of “climate change”). But the funny thing is that you could just take the title and the content of that article, take out the date it was published, and it would read like a normal climate change article from the NYT.
 
But in any case, another article shown by Climate Depot was published in July 21st, 1932 in Brisbane, Australia for The Queenslander. The title of the article was: “A Warmer World.”
 
“Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent,” began the article. “Its glaciers are shrinking… it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.”
 
One thing I would like to point out is the fact that, given the timeframe of these articles, the Left cannot effectively blame gas-powered vehicles for climate change. That Queenslander article and the Jefferson City Tribune article both mention melting glaciers, which the modern Left has often attributed to the use of gas-powered vehicles such as cars, planes and ships. But the earliest combustion-engine cars, though they were around since the late 19th century, were nowhere near as prominent back then as they are today. And yet, they can be blamed for melting glaciers?
 
But the funny thing is that, while one might be able to b.s. their way around saying that there is, indeed, a connection between combustion-engine vehicles and climate change, that argument doesn’t stand the test of time.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, if one were to research the beginning of the Modern Warm Period, they would find it started at around the same time that these articles began to pop up, in the late 1920s, early 1930s. But there have been two other Warm Periods (as far as we know; there were probably more) in the history of the planet: the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 950 A.D. to 1250 A.D., and the Roman Warm Period, which lasted from approx. 250 B.C. to 400 A.D.
 
Both are periods of particularly high climate warming and NEITHER OF WHICH CAN BE BLAMED ON CAPITALISM AS THAT SYSTEM HADN’T EXISTED AT THOSE TIMES!
 
No one can blame the combustion-engine or fossil fuels for the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. No one can blame A/Cs or lightbulbs or all the other things Leftists claim cause climate change on Warm Periods that occurred WELL before these things ever existed.
 
What’s more, considering the patterns of these two Warm Periods, the Modern Warm Period should’ve been easily-predictable. Roughly a thousand years passed between the beginning of the Roman Warm Period and the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period. Add another thousand years, and you get to the Modern Warm Period. This tells us that our climate changes in cycles, seemingly every thousand years or so, and in a thousand years, we should see the beginning of another Warm Period.
 
The Warm Periods also seemingly last for around 300 to 600 years, so considering when the last one began, I’d say the Modern Warm Period will likely end somewhere between the 2200s or 2500s, give or take a few decades or even a couple of centuries.
 
Now, while one might then argue that the articles were therefore correct, let me remind you that the articles tried to scare people into thinking we were facing a climate apocalypse totally unprecedented and it would take quite the sacrifice to reverse it. The first article talked about major cities flooding as a result of melting glaciers. The second one was, to its credit, a tad more objective and mentioned that the melting glaciers had been an occurrence for centuries.
 
But then you get an article from The New York Times (because of course it was going to be the NYT) from 1969 that was titled: “Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs,” where the “expert” that was interviewed said that the “North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.” Fast-forward FIVE decades later, and the glaciers are still there and growing in size.
 
Despite the fact that the Earth’s climate is rather obviously cyclical, ignorant people will assert that we must be doing something tremendously dangerous for the climate and that we are uniquely responsible for it and we must raise everyone’s taxes sky high in order to combat this unprecedented emergency.
 
It’s all fake and phony down to the last detail. The climate changes, not because of what humanity does, but because it’s how God made the Earth. It’s not static; it’s dynamic. The fact that it can rain or be completely sunny ought to tell people that (and before you tell me “climate and weather aren’t the same thing”, why does the Left always say that a hurricane, a weather phenomenon, is a sign of climate change?).
 
The Left, since the 1930s, has asserted that the perfectly normal change in the climate is a dangerous thing and that we must fight against it to some capacity. Now, as far as the writers from the 1930s go, I can give them some benefit of the doubt considering their technology and therefore knowledge was not quite as good as ours at the time, but there definitely is no excuse for the modern Left.
 
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they run with the idea that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, specifically as a result of living a comfortable life with our cars and our A/Cs in our capitalist economic system and our Republican governmental system. It’s all b.s., as we well know.
 
There is nothing particularly strange about a changing climate, or even a warming period. It happens in cycles and it’s not caused by us.
 
Certainly, none of the proposals brought up by the Left would do anything to help.
 
Hebrews 11:3
“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

As with many other times in this country, the issue of gun control is widely talked about by many people. With Democrats demanding mandatory gun buybacks (that wouldn’t work at any capacity), ABC News and the Washington Post released a new poll that they claim shows favorability for more gun control laws.
 
The poll asked people a variety of questions, such as “would you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” The poll showed that 56% said they would support a nationwide ban on “assault” weapons sales, while 41% oppose.
 
Now, allow me to make one quick point about this, before getting to the major point: there’s no such thing as an “assault” weapon. Literally anything can be used for assault. Anything from an AR-15 to a pencil can be used in an assault. “Assault weapons” aren’t a real thing. And no, AR doesn’t stand for “assault rifle”. Only very ignorant people make that argument. It stands for the company that manufactures it: Armalite. An AR-15 is an Armalite Rifle series 15.
 
But now onto the grander point surrounding this question: that number doesn’t mean what the Left wants it to mean.
 
There’s no doubt that that number is high (of course, there are more Democrats and Independents than Republicans surveyed), but that is actually not a bad number at this point. You see, apart from just showing that number, the poll showed us other numbers from previous polls taken years and years prior, so that we might be able to find a trend or a pattern. That 56% support is rather normal, all things considered.
 
Here is what that question showed in the poll:
 

• 9/5/19, the day the poll was taken, shows 56% support a nationwide ban on “assault weapons”, with 41% opposing.
• 4/11/18, the support was at 62% while the opposition was at 35%.
• 2/18/18, 50% support, 46% oppose.
• 6/23/16, 51% support and 48% oppose.
• 12/13/15, 45% support and 53% oppose.
• 4/14/13, 56% support, 42% oppose.
• 3/10/13, 57% support, 41% oppose.
• 1/13/13, 58% support, 39% oppose.
• 1/19/11, 63% support, 34% oppose.
• 4/26/09, 54% support, 41% oppose.
• 4/22/07, 67% support, 30% oppose.
• 5/10/00, 71% support, 27% oppose.
• 9/2/99, 77% support, 22% oppose.
• 5/16/99, 79% support, 19% oppose.
• 6/14/94, 80% support, 18% oppose.

 
Over the last 25 years, support for banning “assault weapons” has DROPPED on average. And while there are some times when it goes a bit back up and goes down, it’s similar to market trends: the trend has been going down, with some shifts and hiccups here and there.
 
The fact that the number sits at 56% is statistically irrelevant considering the trend. People’s views on guns has not gone the way the Left has wanted it, thus far.
 
But wait, there’s more.
 
Like I said, they asked numerous questions.
 
For example, a question read as follows: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” This one has to do with that “gun-show loophole” (it’s not really a loophole, as most sellers in gun shows are licensed dealers and rules are not as lax as people think they are).
 
But this one shows a similar story. While the trend isn’t quite as extensive as the prior question, it does show that the number is virtually unchanged in the last 20 years. 89% said they support such a law, but in April of 2013, that number stood at 86%; in March of 2013, 91%; in January of 2013, 88% (there are three numbers for 2013 likely because they came only a few months after the Sandy Hook shooting took place); May of 2000, the number was at 92%; December of 1999, 90%; and May of ’99, 89%. It’s at the same number today as it was back then.
 
Now, again, that number isn’t particularly great, but the number doesn’t jump out at you when compared to prior numbers as it does on its own, which is how the media mostly portray these kinds of numbers: “Look at these numbers, Republicans! You will lose voters if you don’t act on gun control right now!”
 
That is the point of highlighting numbers like these, even though they often don’t mean all that much statistically speaking.
 
But in any case, let’s move on to another example.
 
Another question read: “Would you support a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?” Now, that’s a bit of an odd question to ask, at least with the second part, because 10 bullets are not “high-capacity”. Often times, that is regular capacity. An AR-15 can hold 30 rounds (though there are many dumb laws that require people to fill it with no more than 12 bullets, as if that makes criminals, who don’t normally obey laws, less deadly). 
 
But regardless, we find a similar trend. The number today stands at 60% who support such a ban. That number has been at 56% in April of 2013, 65% in January of 2013 (again, shortly after Sandy Hook), 59% in December of 2012 and 57% in January of 2011. The number is virtually unchanged in that time.
 
Another question asks people if they would support a law allowing the police to “take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.” This one is also weird, considering it’s already a law, but the two dates show that it’s virtually unchanged (86% support now, 85% support April 2018).
 
So while the numbers the media highlight might make you a bit paranoid or scared that we will be losing our 2nd Amendment rights and that most people hate us for being gun owners, keep in mind that the trends aren’t particularly favorable for the Left, who has been really trying to push for more and more gun control.
 
No statistical change is bad, but trends that go further from what the Left hopes is utterly detrimental to them. 76% also said that improving mental health monitoring and treatment, which is what Trump is focusing on, was something that could help reduce mass shootings as opposed to 58% who said the same about stricter gun laws.
 
Republicans aren’t losing the battle on gun ownership, which is why (among other, more obvious reasons) I get annoyed by supposed “Republicans” who take aim (no pun intended) at the NRA and begin siding with Democrats.
 
It’s similar to abortion. We aren’t totally losing the culture wars here, and we need to understand that. Republicans might be scared about what the media reports and subsequently choose to side with them, but that is ultimately what leads them to lose elections. The media doesn’t report reality, they are trying to shape it – and are failing.
 
Proposals such as mandatory gun buybacks will only come to hurt the Democrats, particularly in rustbelt states.
 
Joshua 1:9
“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

The United States is facing a seldom-talked-about crisis: declining birth and marriage rates. While the first is largely in part to Planned Parenthood’s success in routinely massacring the unborn year after year, the second has a number of plausible reasons for happening. But one study finds that the reason, or at least one of the biggest ones, is the lack of “economically-attractive men” who are unmarried.
 
The study’s authors examined data gathered on recent marriages from 2007-2012 and 2013-2017 (5-year marriages). According to studyfinds.org, the “data was used to estimate the financial and sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential husbands by creating economic profiles that resembled real husbands who had married comparable women.” These husbands then were compared to actual data of unmarried men throughout the country, including state and local locations.
 
The researchers found that these “dream” husbands had an average income 58% higher that the real unmarried men, were 30% more likely to be employed than real unmarried men and were 19% more likely to have a college degree than unmarried men.
 
Dr. Daniel T. Lichter, lead author of the study, explains: “Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men – men with a stable job and a good income – make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs. Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.”
 
Of course, this is on average and I believe there are a multitude of factors that affect the current marriage rates (and I’ll get to them), but this does point out quite a delicious irony for the feminist movement: women may be strong and independent, but they still DESIRE a husband who is not a deadbeat, beta loser.
 
I am reminded of an article I wrote a long time ago, back in November of 2017, about a similar subject. In that article, I talked about how the UK Daily Mail said that women, even those who considered themselves “feminist”, still found muscular and wealthy men to be attractive.
 
I also talked about the reasons for that to be the case: muscles are a sign of potential safety from physical harm (as long as the guy is a good man and not an abuser) and money is a sign of potential safety from financial harm (no one wants to starve).
 
So it makes sense that these mentalities that are as old as time itself remain in humans: we seek safety and comfort. Men seek to be able to protect their women and women seek to be able to be protected by their men. This isn’t sexism or misogyny but basic biology. The strong and fit will seek to protect those they have an emotional connection to. This is why men and women can become pretty much superhuman when their children are in danger.
 
But that’s physical protection. Financial protection is a rather new form of protection (in the grand scheme of things, but it has been around for millennia as well). Women seek men who are financially stable and capable of providing for a family. This is as true today as millennia ago.
 
In a day and age when student loan debt financially cripple most people, and in an age when more women are enrolled into colleges than men are (56% of college students nationwide are women), it comes as no surprise that there is such a hole in desirable men. Women tend to want to marry up, not sideways or down. When a woman does financially better than a man, she finds little to no reason to get married to that man (again, there are other factors to marriage, but this is an important one).
 
If she is able to sustain herself financially, that is one less reason to get married. Now, I’m not saying we should roll back the clock to a time when a woman was legally incapable of working, but I am saying that the feminist movement regarding female independence creates this sort of scenario: almost no man is good enough.
 
And that is another major reason, at least as far as I can see, for declining marriage rates. Cornell University points out the lack of economically-attractive men, and they are not wrong, but I do not think they quite got to the root of the overarching problem.
 
The lack of economically-attractive men is an effect, not a cause. The cause, at least one of the biggest ones, in my opinion, is the feminist movement. The idea of a “strong and independent woman”, while the norm today, naturally serves to divide men and women. Now, I’m not saying women shouldn’t be strong and independent, but independence itself indicates a separation. Independence means to be apart from another thing upon which one might at one point have depended.
 
It’s a matter of cause and effect: women seeking “independence” from men means women being apart from men and not really finding it necessary to be with men. As such, declining marriage rates seem logical and, in my opinion, by design.
 
 
Women’s ability to be financially independent and equal, while not a bad thing in itself, does render men with one less asset to bring into the “marriage bargain”, as Dr. Lichter mentioned. Again, women tend to want to marry up. With the standard rising, less men become financially attractive and marriage rates go down.
 
It also doesn’t help that extreme militant Leftists insist that all men are rapists, men rape women in college all the time, that toxic masculinity is even a thing and that men are, overall, not to be trusted with anything, least of all women.
 
Much as the feminist movement might try and suggest they are for “equality”, they really are not doing that. Men and women are already considered legally equal. The “problems” they bring up, such as the fictitious wage gap, comes as a result of women working less total hours than men on average, not as a result of sexism. Not to mention that they regularly attack “straight, white men” as often as they can, highlighting not only their hatred towards straight and white people, but also towards men.
 
The problem of declining marriage rates is multifaceted, but the constant attacks against men just for being men certainly don’t help matters any. It only serves to create distrust on impressionable young women.
 
The study points out an interesting portion about this problem, but I wouldn’t say that a lack of economically-attractive men is a cause of declining marriage rates. It’s an effect, as is declining marriage rates, of militant feminazism.
 
But another major cause, I’d say, is the overall lack of regard for the importance and value of marriage. What do I mean by that? I mean that most people view it as a unity of love, and while it is that, that’s not the entire point. Marriage is a unity, not only between a man and a woman but also a unity between the two and the Lord, who is at the head of the marriage.
 
Let me share with you what Ephesians 5:22-33 says:
 
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
 
That is a lot to cover, and I do not quite have the time to do so, but one important thing about this is just who created marriage: God. The same God who created you and me created the unity between a husband and wife; created the marriage between the two. It’s why we say it’s “holy matrimony”. But the “holy” part has largely been taken out of the idea of marriage. From gay marriage to an unmarried man and woman living in the same place and even having a baby together while not even thinking on the need for marriage, these things deprive marriage of all its spiritual meaning.
 
The fact that marriage rates are down is a crisis to people like us, Christians, but not to people like the Left, who do not value marriage in the least. Marriage means nothing more to them than unity of the flesh, and even then, they understand they don’t need marriage for that. What they advocate and support fervently is sexual immorality that goes against the meaning and significance of marriage, not to mention God’s Word.
 
As with shootings, this is yet another effect of our turning our backs against the Lord as a nation. Slowly but surely, His Word is becoming less and less recognized as the ultimate authority. His Word is becoming less and less relevant in people’s eyes and seek to outright rebel against every bit of it. Marriage, an institution built by the Lord, is becoming less and less relevant, and so, less and less sought after by people.
 
Now, again, the study pointed out that women do, indeed, still want to get married, which points to the feminazis’ failure, at least to a certain extent. But it’s only a matter of time until marriage itself becomes completely irrelevant in many people’s eyes. Its definition and significance has certainly already been heavily altered from what God intended it to be.
 
But in sum, what I’m trying to convey is the eternal importance of following the Lord, His Word and His Authority. Marriage is extremely important, in my opinion, and it’s taken quite the beating in recent time. I can only hope and pray that these trends, of declining marriage and birth rates, will be bucked and overturned so that people will get married more and have beautiful families together.
 
Proverbs 18:22
“He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.”
 
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.