​Over the year and a half since Trump’s 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady has blamed multiple entities for her loss including: James Comey, the FBI, Russian bots, Wikileaks, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Facebook, Twitter, the vast right-wing conspiracy, sexism, white women, women who vote for whom their husbands vote for and many, many other people.
 
This time, however, it’s her husband Bill that is pointing the finger at an entity. And somehow, it may be even more ridiculous than all the others.
 
Bill Clinton blames THE NEW YORK TIMES for Hillary’s loss.
 
Now, you may be thinking that it shouldn’t be insanely surprising. After all, Hillary has already thrown a lot of Leftist entities under the bus. But it’s not just who Bill blames, but also in the way he blames them.
 
He doesn’t just blame The NYT for not praising Hillary enough or support her enough. Rather, he ACCUSES The New York Times of WORKING WITH TRUMP!
 
Let me give you some necessary information. Amy Chozick, a reporter for The New York Times, has a new book called: “Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling.”
 
Ignoring the eye-rolling part about the glass ceiling, let’s look at what Amy has to say.
 
“After the election, Bill would spread a more absurd Times conspiracy: The publisher had struck a deal with Trump that we’d destroy Hillary on her emails to help him get elected, if he kept driving traffic and boosting the company’s stock price.”
 
Yep, according to Bill, the NYT was working in cahoots with the Trump campaign to destroy Hillary.
 
Here are some of NYT’s articles pre- and post-election: “Hillary Clinton, a Woman Dogged by Men’s Misdeeds,” published on Nov. 10, 2016. “Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Manterrupted,” published Sept. 27, 2016. “How Hillary Clinton Became A Hawk,” whatever that means, published on April 21, 2016. “Some Donald Trump Voters Warn of Revolution if Hillary Clinton Wins,” published Oct. 27, 2016.
 
The New York Times is as pro-Hillary and anti-Trump as you can get. So for Bill to be accusing them of making some sort of deal with Trump to beat Hillary is ridiculous.
 
If you still aren’t convinced that the NYT is very anti-Trump, here are some articles about Trump himself: “Donald Trump, Manly He-Man,” mocks the NYT on Feb. 27, 2018. “Donald Trump Sure Has a Problem With Democracy,” ironically mentions the NYT on March 6th, 2018. “’I Voted for Donald Trump, and I Regret It’”, claims the NYT with people who most certainly did not vote for Trump.
 
And let’s not forget the fact that Trump has repeatedly called them “the failing New York Times”.
 
Now, aside from detailing Bill’s absurd claims, Chozick’s book also gives us some great insights into the Hillary campaign and the mood during and after the election.
 
The Daily Beast shares: “On the night of the election, Chozick describes a dejected Clinton when she was told by campaign staffers that it was over.”
 
“’Of all the Brooklyn aides, Jen Palmieri had the most pleasant bedside manner,’ Chozick writes. ‘That made her the designated deliverer of bad news to Hillary. But not this time. She told Robby there was no way she was going to tell Hillary she couldn’t win. That’s when Robby, drained and deflated, watching the results with his team in a room down the hall from Hillary’s suite, labored into the hallway of the Peninsula to break the news. Hillary didn’t seem all that surprised. ‘I knew it. I knew this would happen to me…’ Hillary said, now within a couple of inches of his face. ‘They were never going to let me be president.’”
 
While that doesn’t necessarily relate to Bill’s accusation, it’s a neat little insight into the Hillary campaign’s mood upon realizing there was no chance Hillary could beat Trump and Hillary’s personal mood about receiving the news.
 
Frankly, it’s pretty overdramatic, as emotional and crushing as it would feel to lose a national election. “They were never going to let me be president”? As though she deserved it? I can see why she would think that. After all, she chose to remain with her predator of a husband to keep the Party unified, and chose to support the up-and-coming hot shot of a candidate that beat her when she had the best chance to become President back in 2008.
 
She’s the most cheated on woman in America, so it’s easy to see why she thought she deserved to be President. However, for every reason she thinks she should’ve been President, there are a million more reasons that she shouldn’t be. That’s a concept that most people in America have agreed upon, given the results of the election.
 
Thankfully, she isn’t President and will almost certainly never become President.
 
Now, returning to Bill, it’s rather hilarious to see him put the blame on a pro-Hillary entity, particularly accusing them of working with Trump.
 
It really depicts the desperation of the Hillary campaign, or at least of Bill Clinton. Beyond that, I think it really depicts just how broken and shocked they were to see Trump win. Next to no one, other than maybe Trump himself, expected Trump to win.
 
We have seen the effect it has had on Hillary’s mind and we now also see the kind of effect it has had on Bill. The Left’s patented victim mentality is at full display with Bill accusing the NYT of being almost directly against them.
 
Isaiah 59:2
“But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In recent time, I’ve been surprisingly speaking positively about California, or at least the citizens of California. About a week ago, I had spoken about the possibility of California being split up into three different states with their own governing bodies.
 
And more good news keep coming from one of the least likely places.
 
A survey, surprisingly conducted by UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society (by the name alone, you can tell how Leftist they are), showed that there was strong support for some of Trump’s immigration agenda in even the state’s most left-leaning areas.
 
“About 24 percent of the survey’s participants said it’s ‘very important’ for the U.S. to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, while 35 percent said it’s ‘somewhat important,’ according to the poll. That viewpoint even held true in the Bay Area, were 25 percent of those surveyed said increasing deportations is very important and 35 percent said it’s somewhat important.”
 
“And about 49 percent of Californians support temporarily banning people from Muslim-majority countries, according to the poll. In the Bay Area, 44 percent of residents support the ban, the least out of any region in California.”
 
When you put together the number of people who think it’s very or somewhat important to increase deportations, that number equals 59%, meaning 59% of the people surveyed wanted an increase in deportations.
 
Need I remind you that this is CALIFORNIA?!
 
And like I mentioned in the title, that’s not all. The report says that 49% of Californians support the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries.
 
58% said that increasing taxes on corporations would hurt or make no difference to the California economy.
 
54% said the government should play a minor role or no roll at all in reducing income inequality.
 
Only 54% of Californians have a positive view of Muslims (I say only because, again, this is California. You’d think that number would be at least decently higher).
 
“73% of Californians hold positive views toward Asian Americans; 73% say that members of the group are intelligent”, which is honestly kind of funny and kind of racist when you think about it. One major stereotype of Asian people is that they are super smart or at least very good at math. So for this number to come out is actually kind of funny.
 
They also have numbers about views on Latinos (75% positive) and their intelligence (57% think they’re intelligent), as well as African Americans (70% positive) and 51% think they’re intelligent, and white people (69% positive, which is not surprising that it’s lower than the others, but still decently high) with 59% saying they think white people are intelligent.
 
Now, it’s not all fantastic news. 79% support a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers, 66% reject the idea of a wall as a priority, and 68% say big businesses and corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes (and yes, I, as well as UC Berekely, recognize the paradox with that and the statistic saying 58% think raising taxes on corporations hurts or doesn’t affect the state economy).
 
But all of these things were already expected out of California. With the way the media and the Democrats paint DREAMers, I’m not surprised at the support for them.
 
It’s all the other numbers that are the real story here. They’re absolutely mind-blowingly in support of things that Trump is looking to do or at least what conservatives want. Let me remind you that Trump lost California by 29 points. So it’s really fantastic to see these numbers.
 
But we’re not done sharing good news.
 
“Nearly half of Californians (45%) report that being Christian is an important part of being American”, “73% think that blending into larger society is an important part of being American” and “88% think speaking English is important”.
 
Let me remind you also that California is the nation’s only sanctuary state. A state that happily welcomes illegal immigrants and shields them from the Trump administration seeking to impart justice upon them.
 
I’m particularly surprised at the number of people who think being Christian is important to being an American. I have all but given up on the state in terms of Christianity. I believe I’ve even gone so far as to say that it’s a sort of Sodom 2.0.
 
That certainly was my view, at the very least.
 
Now, I’m not saying that things will immediately improve for the state. If they hope things will improve, they will first have to get rid of Gov. Jerry Brown. Thankfully, this is Brown’s assured final term as Governor because he’s ineligible to run for re-election this November thanks to term limits in the California Constitution (Brown has been Governor of California since 2011 and was also Governor from 1975 to 1983).
 
But that won’t really matter if California elects another socialist Democrat, so conservatives in California will have to vote either for a conservative candidate (say, Travis Allen, who boasts about having voted for Trump, according to the LA Times) or will have to vote to split up the state in three ways.
 
Regardless, that will be left for Californians to deal with in the Fall. It’s up to them to decide what kind of future they will have.
 
But all things considered, I’m actually pretty happy to see some of those numbers. For as far-Left as the media, Hollywood, and the California government paint the state, the people there are seemingly a good deal more conservative than we give them credit for.
 
I’m reminded of jokes people would make at California’s expense, such as when Trump says we should build a wall, we should also build it along California’s national border, not just the international border; or when Kim Jong-un would threaten to blow up the country, people would joke that California should be target practice for him.
 
When making those jokes, obviously, people would think about the Hollywood liberals and the Leftists running the state into the ground. It’s easy to forget that there are plenty of conservatives there as well, at least living outside of the big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and others.
 
Even I had forgotten about them, when I believed California had long reached a point of no return. But all is seemingly not lost. Yes, the Left has a stronghold in California, but the people there are seemingly waking up.
 
Which is honestly not a surprise, really. The Left’s policies are always detrimental for everyday people. You can put as much sugar on crap as you want, but at the end of the day, it’s still crap.
 
I think people are beginning to realize this, given these numbers. Don’t misunderstand, they are still very Left-leaning in other areas. I didn’t see anything about abortion or “sexual identity” in the survey, and even in some things, most people still responded with Left-leaning answers.
 
But considering how far gone I had naively come to believe California was, I’d say these are pretty good news. I’m just hoping that this trend away from socialism continues to grow and people can Make California Great Again.
 
Romans 12:12
“Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Starbucks has been under fire lately, seemingly for “racial bias” due to a video showing two black men being arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks and another story of a black man being denied entry to a restroom. I won’t go into a whole lot of detail about it, just know that, according to the woman who recorded the video, the staff at the shop called the police because the men hadn’t ordered anything while they waited for a friend to arrive and another incident in which a black man needed to use the restroom, having not made a purchase, and was denied entry despite the fact that another man, who was white, also had not made a purchase but was allowed entry.
 
The first situation is rather strange, as the two black men seemingly were not doing anything wrong, just sitting in the shop and waiting for their friend. I don’t know what warranted the manager to call the police or what warranted the police to arrest the two men. Thankfully, they were both released some hours later, but you really have to wonder what could have been going on there.
 
According to witnesses, the two men weren’t doing anything.
 
Due to these two circumstances, Starbucks has been under fire, with the hashtag “#BoycottStarbucks” popping up, prompting Starbucks CEO to do some damage control and conduct a “racial-bias education program”.
 
Now, I’m not going to defend Starbucks in the least. They are progressive loons and I’ve been doing my own “#BoycottStarbucks” movement for a very long time for different reasons. But it’s very interesting to see a company that has a brand of progressivism seem so racist.
 
Of course, they’re Leftists, so maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised, but still. Their whole brand is that of “progressives” who are only biased against police and military. They don’t tend to show bias against black people, so it’s very interesting to see this.
 
But I really should be getting to the bigger reason I’m writing this article. I, for one, don’t really care for Starbucks’ reputation or what people think about them. That’s not the reason I’m writing this article. The reason for this article is that a black man shared a video on Twitter in which he, in essence, took advantage of the scrutiny Starbucks has been getting and managed to convince a barista to give him a free coffee.
 
The video shows the man telling the barista: “I heard ya’ll was racist, so I came to get my free coffee.”
 
The barista, who is a white female, responds: “I saw that!”
 
Prompting the man to say: “I heard you guys don’t like black people, so I came to get my Starbucks reparations voucher.”
 
The barista then said: “Is that a real thing?” It’s not. “I mean, I’ll give it to you, I saw that on my Twitter last night and I was like, what the f**k!”
 
The barista then proceeds to make the man the coffee and the man sarcastically said: “That’s what I’m talking about! This is justice.”
 
Now, there’s nothing malicious about this video or what I’m saying about the man. The man, whom I’ll refer to as Bryan Sharpe, his name, was simply taking advantage of the ignorance of the company and the barista. As a matter of fact, he even commented with: "Black privilege gets me free coffee. I love racism. Only in America." Clearly, all he was doing was trolling the barista.
 
All he had to do was claim Starbucks is racist and the barista complied, giving him free coffee, which is most likely a violation of company policy, but since this is “reparations” in the barista’s mind, it’s fine.
 
The barista didn’t want to make it seem as though she was racist herself, and so she complied with Sharpe’s request to get some coffee free of charge. It’s more funny than it is anything else.
 
But this does highlight how tightly wound the Left is when it comes to racial issues. If they appear to have been racist, even if they weren’t, they will immediately submit and apologize. The ironic part in their efforts to restrict free speech is that they end up restricting their own free speech some times.
 
I recall a time when Ozzy Osbourne’s daughter, Kelly, was on The View and proceeded to say something that was viewed as racist. This was back during the 2016 election and they were talking about Donald Trump. Kelly Osbourne said: “If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?”
 
Of course, she immediately had to apologize and attempt to rephrase it. Frankly, as a Latino, I found that to be more funny than offensive. Personally, I don’t really get offended if someone attacks my race. If someone refers to me as a Mexican, I’ll correct them since that’s a nationality, not a race, but I won’t get offended.
 
I’m not petty and shallow enough to be offended by something so silly. Someone could call me a “beaner” and I still wouldn’t care. But the interesting thing is that, Leftists do care about that.
 
They don’t ever want to offend anyone, unless that person is a Christian, conservative, Trump supporter and Republican, but they don’t want to offend other people. So, they restrict even their own speech.
 
Now, I’m not saying we should all start saying the N-word, or call gay people the F-word. It’s in pretty bad taste to do something like that. But people shouldn’t be so concerned about “offending” people. Cotton shouldn’t offend black people. A cross shouldn’t offend Atheists. Darwin’s Origin of the Species certainly doesn’t offend me.
 
The American flag shouldn’t offend people. Kelly Osbourne’s comment shouldn’t offend Latinos. It should be refuted, since she’s making the assumption that Trump wants to deport all Latinos, which is simply not true, but it shouldn’t offend people.
 
Likewise, the Starbucks barista shouldn’t risk her own job (though this being Starbucks, and given the reasons she gave free coffee to the guy, I don’t think there’s much risk anyway) just to “appease” someone who is very clearly taking advantage of the company’s situation.
 
Now, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be anything that offends us. Of course, there are legitimate reasons to be offended. I was certainly offended when Joy Behar insulted the Vice President’s Christian beliefs. I was also offended that it took her about a month to apologize.
 
I was offended at the “art” piece of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine. I’m offended every time NFL players protest the National Anthem. I’m offended every time someone burns the American flag or flies it upside down.
 
I’m offended every time someone is discriminated against for their Christian or Jewish faith, their conservative views or their support of Trump.
 
Why? Because these are legitimate reasons to be offended. Cotton is not something to be offended over. No black person today has had to pick cotton under the threat of a white master. No white person today has owned a slave.
 
The Starbucks barista shouldn’t feel as though she’d commit some sort of hate crime by denying the guy some free coffee. And notice how every time I refer to Sharpe, unless it’s important to take notice, I never refer to him as “the black man”? Just “the man”? That’s because, unless it’s necessary to point it out, I don’t care about the guy’s race. Same goes for the barista. I could’ve referred to her as “the white barista” or “the female barista”, but neither is necessary to point out every single time.
 
THAT is what real progress looks like. What real EQUALITY looks like. Not looking at someone and referring to them as their race unless it’s absolutely necessary and certainly not taking advantage of my own race to make someone else feel guilty. I don’t care about the guy’s or the barista’s race or gender. But that is all liberals and Leftists can focus on.
 
If someone didn’t get a job in a company and they tell their liberal friend about it, they might think there’s race discrimination going on.
 
Remember the Canadian superintendent in the “white privilege” poster? That she claimed that her skin color had given her unfair advantages?
 
How is that in any way progressive? How is that in any way equalizing? How is a Starbucks barista giving free coffee to a black man “reparations” for at least the incidents surrounding the company?
 
How are reparations a way to move forward? All they are is an excuse not to try to be successful and asking for things to be given to you, forcing a member of another race to feel guilty for transgressions that had nothing to do with them and had everything to do with the Democrat Party.
 
The way to move forward isn’t to essentially put white people in the place of black people of the past. That would literally be regression. The way to move forward isn’t also shaming and attacking someone for being white. That’s also regression.
 
The way to move forward is to study history so that we may never again repeat it.
 
Alas, I digress. Returning to Sharpe, I’m not trying to call him out for anything. If anything, I’m calling out the fear and ignorance coming from the barista. She seemed like a nice enough kid trying to do the right thing, but she shouldn’t be so worried about appearing racist if she were to say “no”. If there’s a racial problem with Starbucks or its employees, that’s up to the company and the individual employees, not her necessarily.
 
Romans 2:11
“For God shows no partiality.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

If you read my previous article about James Comey, you know that I mentioned in the end that the media would eventually get tired of him and return to Stormy Daniels. That article was published on Monday. It’s Wednesday. And already, the media has gotten tired of him. That’s gotta be some sort of record.
 
CNN’s Ana Navarro tweeted on Monday: “Maybe it’s just me… the more I hear from Comey, the more conflicted I feel. I want to believe him that this is all about loyalty to country and inviolable respect for the truth. But damn, the guy has a big ego, is selectively inconsistent. I find him obnoxiously self-righteous.”
 
It’s honestly astounding how quickly James Comey came to be even somewhat disliked by the media.
 
And Navarro wasn’t the only one who expressed dissatisfaction with Comey. Politico has suggested that Comey’s “white knighthood” was distracting from his story about the administration’s supposed misdeeds.
 
An op-ed on the Washington Post called Comey an “honest man”, but also called his memoir a “big mistake” and a seemingly “desperate” attempt at staying relevant.
 
Even the New York Times had a story condemning Comey, opining that Comey has become a lot more like Trump: “he has abetted his own transformation from a crucial witness to a character in the serial drama and nonstop spectacle of Trump’s life.”
 
Frankly, I find that comparison to be rather offensive but not entirely unexpected from the NYT. It’s entirely expected that they would insult Trump but not expected that they would insult Comey and even likening him to Trump.
 
But let’s try to view these things from a liberal’s point of view. How badly do you have to mess up for the media to get sick and tired of you even though you’ve been fighting a war with Trump the entire time? When someone expresses a conservative belief or thought, that person tends to be immediately shunned and attacked, forcing them to submission and apology. But Comey has done nothing short of being another typical Deep State Leftist at war with the POTUS and yet, he’s still being attacked by at least some members of the media who are theoretically in the same camp as Comey.
 
Again, how badly do you have to mess up for even your own people to dislike you when you’ve been striving to do precisely what they want you to do? Not to mention that this came surprisingly quickly.
 
I had predicted that Comey’s memoirs about Trump would eventually die out and the media would move on to something else, but I had also expected the media to milk that toxic cow for all its worth before moving on. The book has only come out YESTERDAY and the media has been sick of him since even before that.
 
Again, Navarro tweeted that on Monday, the day before Comey’s book came out. And she was already sick of him.
 
This whole storyline with Comey lasted about as long as the Democrats’ government shutdown. Of course, it’s not because of anything Comey has written in his book. It’s full of malarkey that the Left can’t get enough of. It’s been seemingly, given what the MSM sources have said, all about his ego and personality.
 
Now, I personally have not seen any interview with James Comey. I don’t care to watch a full hour of crap when I could be doing something far more productive. But there’s no doubt that the media and the Left have most, if not all, watched some interviews with James Comey. Furthermore, there’s no doubt that, aside from the Stormy Daniels story, James Comey was the biggest story for them to talk about.
 
They were hoping and even hyping this book to be the end or at least a key component in the destruction of Donald Trump. They were hanging on to every letter and word in that book and everything that came out of Comey’s mouth.
 
So you really have to be a narcissistic egomaniac to turn off people who are in your own side. And no, he’s not at all like Trump. Trump touts his accomplishments because virtually no one else will (have you even heard any story coming from the MSM about low black and Hispanic unemployment rates or Trump’s 50% approval rating?) But Trump never thinks himself better than everyone else in the room with him. That’s what the Left does.
 
The Academy Awards is one massive stink cloud of narcissism, egos and self-righteousness. Every member of the MSM acts as though every word they say is gospel and every word they type is sacred scripture. And those who wholly disagree with them are nothing but uncultured swine that don’t even deserve the time to be reading their “holy texts.”
 
And given James Comey is another Leftist, albeit as a bigger part of the Deep State, I’m not surprised that he shares the same common traits as his political peers. What I am surprised by, as I’ve said over and over again, is at how quickly people within his own political spectrum have come to grow tired of him.
 
It was likely inevitable, I suppose. Obama had soured on Comey eventually. So has former AG Loretta Lynch, as well as Hillary Clinton (though it’s arguably more understandable for her), and so did Trump before the President fired him.
 
Given all of these accounts, Comey is a pretty despicable person. Granted, I have my own reasons, as a conservative and Trump supporter, to dislike him, but it’s pretty interesting that even members of his own political side have come to at the very least dislike him.
 
And you really have to be a massive jerk in every aspect of your life for even the Left to dislike you despite your efforts against Trump.
 
Proverbs 8:13
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Over this past weekend, an environmental activist committed suicide in a park in Brooklyn, New York, to protest the use of “fossil fuel” and the supposed damage it’s doing to the world and its inhabitants.
                            
The New York Post reported: “David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using ‘fossil fuel’ to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.”
 
Some of the note reads as follows: “Most humans on the planet now breathe air made unhealthy by fossil fuels, and many die early deaths as a result… My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves,” adding: “Honorable purpose in life invites honorable purpose in death.”
 
“This is not new,” continued the letter. “As many have chosen to give a life based on the view that no other action can most meaningfully address the harm they see. Here is a hope that giving a life might bring some attention to the need for expanded actions, and help others give a voice to our home, and Earth is heard.”
 
This man horrendously ended his own life because he bought into the false belief of climate change. A hoax perpetrated by the Left to increase the size of the government, their power and their bank accounts has led a person to end his own life.
 
David fully believed the lies the Left was spewing about climate change and its apocalyptic nature, and believed we weren’t doing enough to end it… also believing we even could end it if it were happening.
 
Now, the air is fine. We are able to breathe just as well today as we could a century ago. And we’ll be able to breathe just as fine in a century as well. The only place that comes to mind that actually has unhealthy air to breathe would be China. In the U.S., we are far better off than the Chinese because we don’t have to constantly wear masks to cover our noses when we go outside.
 
David believed we are slowly but surely burning ourselves. There is no actual scientific data to show that we are doing such a thing. We are in the middle of April and have yet to fully experience Spring. Frankly, we’re closer to a global cooling than we are a global warming.
 
But none of that matters to the Left. As long as they can continue making money from exploiting people’s fears and can win elections and regain/retain power, they don’t care about people like David, whom they’ve mortally terrified with their lies.
 
Time and time again, climate change has been refuted by people who use logic and actual science, and time and time again, it has been claimed to be factually true by people who pervert science on a daily basis.
 
The same people that say there are more than two genders are the same people that say they believe and support science and facts. And no, gender isn’t different from sex. They’re synonyms. You can literally Google: “gender synonym” and the answer will be right there. Your gender is determined by your DNA, scientifically speaking, at least. Actually speaking, it would be God who determines your gender.
 
But the topic is science, so we’ll stick with science.
 
The Left, as I’ve said multiple times in the past, has made an utter mockery of science by making these inaccurate claims. And now, that propagandized science has taken the life of a human being. It’s not climate change that killed David, it’s the BELIEF and FEAR that climate change is real that killed him.
 
Nazism has killed over 10 million people. Communism has killed over 100 million. And Leftism has killed over 60 million people since Roe v. Wade in the U.S., and 1.4 BILLION in the world since 1980 (of course, this is all counting abortion). And over this weekend, it has killed someone who believed every word they said.
 
This is one of the very real consequences of the climate change movement. Of the movement made popular by Al Gore, and originated from Nazi Germany.
 
And the Left doesn’t care one single bit. Actually, let me correct that. They do care, but only in that he is made to be a martyr for them. CNN has already made quick work of this story, putting him on a pedestal for his work as a lawyer towards legalizing same-sex marriage.
 
But aside from a couple of nice (from a Leftist’s perspective) words about the guy, the Left will likely be quick to forget about him until he can be used once again for the very cause that cost him his life.
 
That’s how degenerate the Left is. They always use people to further their own agenda, even when that very agenda is what cost that person their life. They constantly use MLK for their own agenda despite the fact that he was a Republican and that Democrats were widely against the Civil Rights movement.
 
I fully believe that, given the chance, the Left would use David to further their agenda and make even more people afraid. Because that’s exactly what they want. They want people to be afraid, because people who are afraid will look for safety anywhere. They can “provide” that safety so long as those people vote Democrat.
 
It’s nothing more than fear-mongering and exploitation and it’s a Leftist specialty. There’s no other kind of person on Earth who would exploit the fears of others to advance their selfish agenda and desires. And there’s no other word to call them than “evil”.
 
Not a single one of the top climate change advocates will shed an actual tear and rethink what he’s doing. Because what it takes for someone to reconsider such a thing in this circumstance would be something I like to call “guilt”. The Left never feels this. They only pretend to feel it when talking about white people and black people, but even then they direct that guilt away from them as though they shouldn’t be lumped in with white people.
 
Chuck Schumer is white, Nancy Pelosi is white, Bill and Hillary Clinton are white; most prominent Democrats are white and somehow distance themselves from their own race when talking about “white guilt” as though they are not part of it, and they are the ones that have the most to do with African-Americans’ struggles in the U.S.
 
They never actually feel the “white guilt” they tell other white people they should feel because Leftists don’t ever actually feel guilt. All of these things advance their agenda, what would they have to feel guilty about? The self-imposed death of one of their advocates? To the Left, their biggest loss comes in the form of one less voter. That’s it.
 
And even then, if this can somehow result in more voters, they wouldn’t feel any sort of loss whatsoever, particularly if they can somehow turn this on Trump and conservatives and say something along the lines of “your inaction towards climate change cost this man his life” or something like that.
 
The Left won’t feel shame from this, knowingly lying to people about this and seeing the cost of those lies.
 
David should not have died on that day, certainly not in that manner. His blood is not on the hands of anyone but the Left and those who know climate change isn’t real but still pass it off as though it is. And I fully believe there are plenty of Leftists who know it’s not real but keep it to themselves so as to not go against their agenda.
 
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.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

James Comey is set to release his book: “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership” on April 17th, 2018. Expectedly, the Left, upon reading excerpts from the book, is praising it and making the claim that there are issues in that book that could really hurt Trump. Spoiler alert: they’re all nothing-burgers.
 
But that’s a different matter entirely. What I’m focusing on is the fact that, because the media is praising the book and saying this will hurt Trump, the RNC released a video that shows Leftist hypocrisy at its highest.
 
The video is a compilation of Democrats calling into question Comey’s integrity, credibility and judgment.
 
The video features short clips of people like Sen. Chuck Schumer saying that he was “appalled by what Director Comey did” upon re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails; Sen. Bernie Sanders saying: “Comey acted in an outrageous way”; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying: “[Comey] made a mistake… not in the right job”; and even a tweet from Howard Dean reading: “[Comey] may have destroyed the credibility of the FBI forever.”
 
Which is really saying something when you fast-forward from that moment to today, when the FBI’s credibility as a whole is in tatters.
 
But perhaps one of the most telling quotes comes from Rep. Jerry Nadler, who said: “The President should fire Comey immediately and he ought to initiate an investigation.”
 
Now, unfortunately, I couldn’t quite confirm when Nadler said this, but I have every reason to believe he was talking about Obama, not Trump.
 
Furthermore, upon doing some more research, I came across an article, interestingly enough published on ABC News’ website, that depicts some of the very same Democrats in the video calling on Comey to resign.
 
First, they have Chuck Schumer, who said: “I do not have confidence in him any longer.”
 
Then, Nancy Pelosi, whom they quote with the very same quote from this video, saying that he’s not right for the job.
 
They also have Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN): “If Director Comey cares about the bureau and the rule of law… I’m sure upon reflection of this action, he will submit his letter of resignation for the nation’s good.”
 
They quote Rep. Maxine Waters: “All I can tell you is the FBI director has no credibility. That’s it.” And even said, in an interview with MSNBC in which she complained about Trump firing Comey, that “If [Clinton] had won the White House, I believe that, given what he did to her and what he tried to do, she should have fired him.”
 
I just love the Left’s hypocrisy some times.
 
From now on, every time you see James Comey tweeting at Trump and you see your friend retweeting what he said to or about him, remind them that even Democrats thought he was not credible and lacking in integrity.
 
Now, going beyond all of that, I believe this is a teachable moment.
 
You can clearly see what the Left thinks of James Comey when he acts in a way that they do not like. When he steps out of line. When he has some influence in the election and it’s not to hurt the Republican candidate. They attack, bash and destroy him. They question his credibility, his integrity, his judgment and even whether he’s the right person for the job… all of which is something we have been doing since Comey’s firing.
 
They loved him when he closed the investigation on the Clinton e-mails and let a criminal walk free but berate him when he re-opens the investigation and dealing a blow to Hillary’s chances of winning the election.
 
Now, I’m not going to say that that very action is what cost Hillary the election. Obama was the worst President of all time and she was just going to be more of the same and the country was tired of it. She was likely going to lose, open investigation or not. But I won’t deny that the re-opening of the investigation hurt Hillary to a certain extent.
 
Upon the closing of the investigation (the first time), the media had prime opportunity to bury any remnants of an investigation having ever taken place and focus more of their time on Trump. Closing the investigation would’ve allowed the Democrats to claim Hillary’s innocence, but all of those opportunities went out the window when Comey re-opened the investigation (before promptly closing it once more soon after because his friends were angry with him).
 
The Left’s bias is evident. When Comey helped Hillary, he was a “good guy”, “full of integrity” and “perfectly credible”. But when he steps out of line and does something to anger the Democrats aka doing the right thing, they berate and bash him, hoping to assassinate his character.
 
Now, he’s back where the Left wants him to be, as a martyr for the Leftist cause to take down Donald Trump, and they have nothing but good things to say about him and his book.
 
But all of that is irrelevant when there’s very accessible records of Democrats attacking Comey in much a similar way that Donald Trump attacks him. He has questioned his credibility, and evidently, so have the Democrats.
 
Now, if they’re hoping this book will be the end of Trump, they will be very much disappointed. I doubt this book, particularly when reminding people of what Democrats have said about the author, will do much if anything to harm Trump. If Michael Wolff’s book did nothing, neither will this.
 
At least this attempt at taking down Trump is a nice change of pace from giving credibility to a porn star. Though they will get back to her once the “hype” for this book dies down.
 
John 17:17
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In previous articles, I have spoken rather negatively (and truthfully) about California (though with justifiable reasons) and have even suggested that there’s possibly no turning back for California, or at the least, I thought that way. But I was wrong; there is still hope for that region.
 
The Daily Wire reports: “A proposal to split California into three states, effectively separating the state’s northern and southern regions from its far more liberal middle, has enough signatures to make it onto the November ballot.”
 
“The ‘CAL 3’ proposal would split off San Diego and southern regions into a separate state, quarantine Sacramento with Los Angeles and much of the Bay Area, and give northern Californians their own self-government. The three new states, according to the petition, would select their own capitals and elect their own legislatures.”
 
Aside from being an altogether great idea, this is also a slap in the face to the Left. Beyond that, if this split does actually occur, it will have a significant negative impact on Democrats in future elections.
 
Let’s talk more in-depth about each point I’m making here in the previous paragraph.
 
First, it’s a fantastic idea for the more conservative citizens in the state. Governor Brown is as Leftist as you can get. His rule has made California literally the worst state to live in. He allows illegals to freely enter the country through his state and taxes the hell out of its current residents and citizens to afford those illegals and people who altogether wish to heavily depend on the government.
 
San Francisco has gone from being a dump to a septic tank, Oakland’s mayor is an unofficial lookout for illegals and Hollywood is… well, Hollywood.
 
Splitting the state in three ways will help those who do not wish to live in a socialist hole.
 
Second, this is indeed a massive slap in the face to the Left as a whole. Things really have to be bad for parts of the state to wish and work towards separating themselves from the larger state. The fact that this petition, which has over 600,000 signatures, is even being considered to enter the ballots in November shows an all-around rejection of the socialist policies and laws that plague California.
 
As it stands, there are plenty of counties who wish to stand against the state’s “sanctuary state” status, and I fully believe part of the reason for this petition is precisely that. That defiance no doubt irks the Left, as it’s also a massive rejection of their agenda. Which makes me think: if even people in California are sick and tired of the Left, how likely is the touted blue wave to come?
 
Which brings me to the third point. If California does split into three distinct states, there goes the Democrats’ safety blanket in future elections. California has the most delegates (55) in the Electoral College because of its population. Splitting the state three ways means Democrats have far fewer guaranteed delegates in future elections.
 
No doubt the uber-liberal state (let’s call it “Crappy California” for now) would still largely vote Democrat and guarantee Democrats some electoral votes. But they would be far fewer than they are at present.
 
Now, I’m not suggesting that the other two states are guaranteed to vote Republican either. They really could go either way. But I’ll take strong competition for electoral votes over assured defeat in that state. If there is even a chance to get some of those votes that would have otherwise gone to every Democrat candidate, the likelihood of conservatism thriving becomes greater.
 
All that being said, that’s not the only proposal to likely go to the ballots in November. According to the Daily Wire: “This proposal is separate from two others, which are asking for complete secession – one liberal, which would separate the full state of California from the rest of the union, and one conservative, which would break off the Orange County area into its own self-governing state.”
 
The interesting thing is that all options present a threat to the Democrat Party. If the state secedes from the union, sure, they’d have their own socialist President (or its equivalent), Constitution and laws, and could implement full-on communism in the region. This would prove devastating for the people of California, as they’d probably have to live in a country that more closely resembles North Korea (at worst) or China (at best). And neither is an attractive option.
 
But the thing about California seceding from the union is that Democrats, in the rest of the United States, would be guaranteed to lose all of the 55 delegates they would usually win in future elections. They wouldn’t even have a smaller state to lean on to get some delegates. They’d get nothing because California would be its own independent entity with no authority or say in United States affairs.
 
Still, I’d prefer Democrats receive some guaranteed delegates if it means sparing the poor people of California. No one deserves to live in a socialist state, particularly those who didn’t vote for a socialist government.
 
Now, we’ll have to wait and see what the people of California vote for. Large part of the reason California is as deep blue as it is is because of the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland areas where socialism is deeply loved (and misunderstood) and those cities have the highest populations in the state.
 
That’s part of the reason this petition is even being proposed, but it might be voted down precisely because of that reason.
 
Still, I hope that the proposal passes and the people of California can be free of the socialist tyrant that is Gov. Brown, at least those living within the proposed split state lines. I’m afraid the people still living in Los Angeles and other surrounding cities will be forced to continue living in a socialist hole, but if they vote for it, they deserve it.
 
Galatians 5:1
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I’ll be entirely honest. I’m as stupefied by this as you are. This is some strange in-fighting within the LGBT community.
 
Let me give you some context. Free Pride Glasgow, a self-described “non-commercial” and more “open-minded” alternative to “traditional” Glasgow LGBT events, has decided to ban drag queens and shows from their event.
 
The Daily Wire reports: “After extensive consideration, the Free Pride Glasgow committee members decided that having men dressed as women giving stellar performances during the event would be offensive to transgender individuals, and that non-binary people within their ranks would be ‘uncomfortable' with having drag performances.’”
 
Let me tell you, transgender people aren’t the only ones who are uncomfortable with drag performances. No doubt, children who are forced to be there by their insane parents are also likely uncomfortable with the whole event, not just the drag queen parts of it.
 
In a statement, Free Pride Glasgow said: “It was felt that it [drag performance] would make some of those who were transgender or questioning their gender uncomfortable. It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus (can’t believe they have a caucus) that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke.”
 
I’m sorry, you can’t tell from reading this, but I’m having trouble writing this. Not because of the issue itself, but because I can’t quite control my laughter here. There are no words to describe how ridiculous this sounds on all fronts.
 
Wouldn’t that statement about supposedly making a mockery of gender be offensive to drag queens? I don’t want to defend drag queens, but you would think, in their own crazy mentality, that they are serious about dressing up in drag and not trying to mock gender. So wouldn’t a statement like that offend drag queens?
 
Of course it does. And of course it did.
 
The Daily Wire reports: “The decision was, notably, unpopular with famous drag queens, many of whom took to social media to suggest Free Pride Glasgow was drawing unnecessary and offensive distinctions of its own.”
 
They even quote a tweet by a woman/man/whatever named Michelle Visage, who wrote: “WHO. THE HELL. BANS DRAG QUEENS FROM GAY PRIDE? THE VERY BACKBONE OF THE PRIDE CELEBRATION? Hello, ever hear of THE STONEWALL RIOTS?!!!”
 
The Stonewall Riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations by members of the gay community against a police raid that took place in 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan.
 
Now, I don’t know why she references the Stonewall Riots here, but her/his/I don’t know frustration is evident. No doubt, many other drag queens feel much the same way.
 
This sort of in-fighting is… interesting, as I wouldn’t picture such in-fighting within the LGBT community. But in-fighting has been known to happen within the Left.
 
Throughout the “#MeToo” movement, many Leftists have had to abandon long-time Democrat donors and supporters just to advance their agenda and to eventually target Trump. They’ve had to turn on Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby and others whom they would otherwise defend or even ignore their actions.
 
And in-fighting comes naturally when discussing the gay community and Muslim community, as the two are natural enemies (though mostly because of the Muslim community, not the gay community).
 
Saying gay people are treated horrendously by Muslims is an understatement. Even the suspicion of homosexuality is enough to get someone into a deal of trouble.
 
Now, the in-fighting doesn’t come from either community, but rather from the Left as a whole. While it’s not as public an in-fight as this drag queen situation, the sort of in-fighting that happens is that the Left will be forced to choose one or the other – interestingly enough, seemingly always choosing the Muslim community.
 
The Left will support the gay community until Islam is somehow involved. Remember the Orlando night club shooting? The Left was more preoccupied with protecting Muslims than gay people. They tried to label the shooting as just another shooting and not a terrorist attack, despite the fact that the perpetrator was a Muslim who pledged allegiance to ISIS.
 
Have you ever wondered why the Left never really addresses gay people’s situation in the Middle East? Why the issue of “gay rights” is strictly focused on the United States? Why they never really focus on the lack of these “rights” gay people should have in the Middle East? Particularly in Muslim nations?
 
Therein lies the problem of pandering to particular groups of people, which is precisely what Free Pride Glasgow is doing here. While trying to “protect” one group of people (transgenders), they utterly ignore and even punish (to an extent) another group of people.
 
In their mission to protect the feelings of transgenders, they offend drag queens. And in a liberal world, to offend someone else (unless that person is a Christian, conservative, Republican or Trump supporter), is a crime… at least it is in England.
 
That’s the problem with choosing people over principles. The Left will be supportive of gay people until the conversation shifts to talking about their situation in the Middle East, which is a conversation no Leftist wants to have. They’d rather ignore the plights of one of their target demographics if it means the other one doesn’t get mad at them in some way and capacity.
 
The Left will “support” women’s rights while simultaneously destroying the very definition of a woman and allowing men to claim to be women and participate in women’s sports. And, of course, those men largely dominate women in physical competitions because men tend to be physically stronger and superior.
 
They will “support” women’s rights to be safe from predatory men while denying them the right to protect themselves with a gun.
 
The Left never supports what is right, just what is “trendy” and “popular” and “mainstream”. They claim being open about your sexuality is “cool” while being a follower and believer of Christ is “dumb”, “ridiculous”, or even “evil”.
 
In the case of the Free Pride Glasgow, there really is nothing right about it. But to flat out ban a particular group of people, particularly a group of people who have been a major part of these events, seems altogether stupid and unnecessary. If they want to be there, why shouldn’t they be allowed to be there? If they want to participate, why shouldn’t they be allowed to participate?
 
It’s their choice to live a life of sin and unrepentance. I would suggest against doing that, but it’s ultimately their decision. Why would they be denied by the very people they would think are their allies? That just doesn’t make much sense, particularly with the given reasons for it.
 
Like I said, there is nothing right about a parade that celebrates homosexuality and I would hope these people eventually accept Christ (though most of them likely won’t). But this whole ordeal seems… strange, if nothing else. I don’t know how else to describe it… other than perhaps “funny”.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:22
“Reject every kind of evil”.
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

On Monday, the FBI raided the home, office and hotel room of Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who’s now being investigated for “possible bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations,” according to The Washington Post.
 
This is all in relation with the Stormy Daniels “scandal” and is nothing more than justice being held hostage by Leftists who got ticked off that their favorite candidate didn’t win. I say this because it’s true and because those possible charges are really reaching for lawlessness.
 
What do I mean? Well, with the bank and wire fraud, that rests solely on Cohen. Supposedly, he had taken a loan of $130,000 to pay Stormy Daniels to make sure she remained quiet about her supposed affair with Trump.
 
Now, I don’t have all the information with me, but I really don’t see any way how Cohen committed fraud against a bank by using the loan to pay someone off. In general, it’s a bad idea to take out a bank loan to pay off, say, a debt, but I never knew it to be illegal (it’s not. Generally speaking, unless the loan agreement specifies otherwise, you can do whatever you want with a bank loan, even investing the money).
 
Again, I don’t have every important bit of information in front of me, but I doubt Cohen committed fraud here, not to mention that Cohen said he paid Daniels with his own money. Even if what he said is untrue, claiming it’s your money doesn’t constitute a bank fraud.
 
The last part, the “campaign finance violations” is also a bit of a reach. Cohen paid Daniels (either with a loan or his own money) “in a private transaction in 2016,” according to Cohen. This could be considered a violation of campaign finance laws, but you also have to ask this: "what about the money Congressmen set aside to pay off women?" If the issue here is that Cohen had to disclose that amount and didn't, why don't horny Congressmen have to do the same?

Why is this a bigger deal for Trump than it would be for, say, Al Franken?
 
Once again, I will admit I don’t have all the information in front of me. I could be completely wrong about this, but generally and logically speaking, with the information I do have, this should be a nothing-burger. This is something that shouldn’t land Cohen in prison or remotely threaten Trump’s presidency.
 
Now, that being said, I don’t doubt the Left will further destroy justice and take into their own hands to destroy Trump. Supposedly, the kind of warrant used to raid Cohen’s home and office is very difficult to get and not used for anything other than something major. Then again, the same could be said for FISA warrants, and you know full well how easy it is for the Left to get those.
 
These warrants aren’t being used to investigate a crime. Mueller was never given a crime to pursue in his investigation and the only reason Cohen is being investigated is because of his ties with Trump. The only reason we’re even hearing about these things is because the Left is full of children who are still throwing tantrums that they lost a Presidential election, particularly against someone they deem a massive buffoon at best.
 
Had Trump lost, there wouldn’t have been a Russia investigation despite the fact that Hillary very clearly and evidentially colluded with Russia in the elections. Had Trump lost, this whole Stormy Daniels eye-roller of a “scandal” would never have even come up. The only reason they are brought up is because he beat the Left, which in their eyes is a crime almost punishable by death (or actually punishable by death if they feel they need to go that far).
 
For as bad as the Left wants to make this appear to be, it’s their own people that do much of the same and even worse. Let’s not forget former Democratic presidential candidate and senator, John Edwards, was tried on those exact charges before eventually being acquitted and the Obama DOJ dropped the charges (because of course they did). It wasn’t a big deal when he did the things they claim Cohen, and by extension, Trump, did so why is it a big deal now? The same could be said about the “Cambridge Analytica scandal”. Obama did the exact same thing, using Facebook’s data to determine voting patterns and likely voters among other things, during the 2012 election in order to influence people into voting for him.
 
It’s entirely likely that Hillary did (or at least tried to do) the same thing in 2016.
 
The reason it’s as big a deal as they make it out to be is because it involves Trump and gives them some hope that they’ll be able to impeach him come next year.
 
Now, let’s address the title of this article. What does this mean moving forward? It means that I’ll be even more fired up to defeat the Left come November. It means that justice is being held hostage by a bunch of angry children in places of relative power. There was no need to raid Cohen’s home and office. Cohen has been cooperative about everything. The only reason a raid was conducted was purely for political reasons. They want to make you, a Trump supporter, angry and afraid that it will all be over soon. And they want to give their base a false sense of hope that Trump’s administration is on the verge of destruction.
 
Legally, much of the same things will happen moving forward as they would have without a raid. Make no mistake, this raid was nothing more than an exhibition of force in order to intimidate you and anyone who supports Trump. It’s nothing but terrorism tactics in its most literal sense.
 
This, on its own, likely won’t lead to Trump’s impeachment, much less his prosecution. Trump was hardly involved in this and has even claimed that he had no knowledge of the payment. Even if he’s lying and he did know about the payment, the Daily Wire tells us: “if Trump knew about it, that could constitute criminal conspiracy to violate campaign finance law”. Not if it really wasn’t a violation of campaign finance law (and there's a chance it won't be seen as one).
 
So there’s a lot of “ifs” in this scenario. If Trump really didn’t know about the payments, that’s the end of this particular criminal charge the Left would want to put on him. But even if he did know about it, they would have to prove that it really was a violation of campaign finance law (which, in all fairness, could be the case).
 
All this really will do is fire up Trump supporters to go out and vote and make sure that Democrats don’t take back either the House of Representatives or the Senate. We’ll take useless Republicans who likely won’t impeach the President based on nothing over blood-thirsty Democrats who will impeach Trump based on the grounds that he simply defeated Hillary and that’s good enough to impeach him.
 
Even then, Democrats would still need a super-majority to supersede the certain veto Mike Pence would issue regarding the impeachment of Trump. And with their agenda of repealing the tax cuts that have helped most of America, taking away people’s guns, and giving amnesty to criminal aliens, prioritizing them over the American people, I don’t see them coming close to a super-majority. If Republicans really wanted to, they could have a super-majority of their own and be in power for decades.
 
The unlikelihood of Democrats winning a super-majority combined with the multiple variables and questions in the Stormy Daniels “scandal” indicates the likelihood of Trump being impeached is not very high.
 
Now, what could this mean for the Left? I don’t know what Trump is thinking, but I don’t think he’ll fire Robert Mueller over this. Mueller doesn’t really have much of a hand in this because his only tie to it is that he gave a referral to the Southern District of New York about this. It was the SDNY and the Department of Justice that had a bigger hand in this ordeal.
 
Does this mean Trump will fire Sessions or Rosenstein? Again, I don’t know what Trump is thinking here. I can’t say with certainty whether he will or not. We'll just have to wait and see. He certainly has the authority to do so and will not be actually charged of "obstruction of justice". Accused? Likely. But not charged.
 
Yes, he could fight it and yes, it could also fire up Trump’s supporters, but it could also fire up Democrat voters as well, smelling likely victory over the horizon. If Democrat voters think they’re very close to actually impeaching Trump and for a seemingly legitimate (it wouldn’t be) reason, they will be fired up to vote.
 
Granted, that could be the general case regardless of what happens, but this alone should fire up Trump supporters even more. At this point, it’s about ensuring the survival of this administration.
 
Proverbs 21:15
“When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

My goodness, I didn’t think we’d actually get to this insane point. Previously, we would simply joke about knife control being a proposed “solution” to ending stabbings and the sort, but the lunatic Left of England might actually be looking to do it.
 
Recently, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan tweeted the following regarding the issue of increased knife-related crimes in London, which have topped New York City’s recently: “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”
 
I don’t think I have to explain why this is a moronic idea that will yield no good results, but I likely will anyway.
 
First, banning knives won’t decrease knife-related crimes. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. If they, by law, can’t have a knife, they will not care one single bit. Whoever wishes to harm someone else will be able to do so despite what the law says. So it makes no sense to further weaken law-abiding citizens. They’ve already been horrendously weakened by the multiple gun control acts passed by Parliament over the last century.
 
Second, how exactly will London police enforce the “no knives” law? They can’t get every single person that breaks the law. Drugs are already illegal and the police have enough trouble as it is regarding that. It’s much the same problem police in the U.S. face with illegal drugs.
 
Third, even if the law enforcement in the U.K. can efficiently enforce this ban, that’s not going to solve the murder problem. If criminals can’t use guns or knives, they’ll use something else, such as a vehicle. In the future, it’s entirely possible that London’s mayor will tweet: “No excuses: there is never a reason to drive a car.” Or “No excuses: there is never a reason to have a cricket bat”. Or “No excuses: there is never a reason to have a lead pipe.” Or even “No excuses: there is never a reason to have a fist”, at which point they’d probably ban hands and demand people chop them off… but then again, that leaves the feet.
 
The point I’m trying to make is that you can try to ban absolutely everything that can hurt someone (which is basically everything that is solid. You could turn a book, a pencil, a cellphone, a computer or a tree branch into a weapon), but it won’t solve the real problem. The real problem doesn’t lie in the tools being used nefariously. Guns don’t kill people. Knives don’t kill people. Vehicles don’t kill people. Baseball (or cricket) bats don’t kill people. Fists don’t kill people. People kill people.
 
A gun can just as easily save a life as it can take one. Ditto for a knife, a car, a baseball bat and a fist.
 
To go after the individual tools is to ignore the real problem, which lies in people’s hearts. If more people understood the significance of life, they might be less keen on taking one.
 
Not that I would ever expect the Left to recognize or even acknowledge the real problem. After all, they INCITE the growth of the problem.
 
They know very well that banning guns won’t keep people from murdering each other. The proof lies in London itself. Sadiq Khan knows full well that banning knives won’t keep people from killing each other either. He just wants to look as though he actually gives a hoot, when in reality he doesn’t, as neither does anyone else in the Left.
 
They also know full well that believing abortion is a good thing further incites the growth of the problem. After all, if someone’s life is worthless inside the womb, why would it have worth outside the womb? If the life of an unborn child is meaningless, how is an already born child’s life any more meaningful? How is a full-grown adult’s life meaningful?
 
That’s the way killers reason, if even just subconsciously. I doubt they care much about the life of an unborn child. If they don’t care about someone who’s already been born, why would they care about someone who hasn’t?
 
And it doesn’t end with abortion. While it’s my biggest argument here, one can also bring up “animal rights’” activists. Those people (though not necessarily all of them) value animals’ lives ahead of humans’ lives, even ahead of their own. Ditto goes for tree huggers, really.
 
I remember some years ago, when a zoo employee had to kill a gorilla because a small child had accidentally fallen into its habitat, and people cared more about the gorilla than they did the child.
 
Granted, the gorilla hadn’t seemingly turned hostile, but it had grabbed the child and dragged him. Not to mention it’s a GORILLA! An animal with IMMENSE strength that can easily be ticked off and wreak havoc upon whatever it wished.
 
And people (at least liberals) were more upset that an “innocent” animal had been killed just because a small child had fallen into its habitat. I remember even seeing one person on Facebook openly admitting that they value animal lives over human lives.
 
And that’s all thanks to the Left diminishing the value of life. Upon doing research for this particular topic, I came across a blog post titled: “Is It Morally Justifiable to Kill an Endangered Animal if a Human Life Is at Risk?”
 
If you even have to ask that question, it already should tell you how little the life of a human being is worth to the Left. To its credit, the blog didn’t necessarily side one way or another, rather leaving it to the readers to debate and argue for either side (though that may have failed since this blog post is a little over a year old and there haven’t been any comments made).
 
But even asking that question, when the answer should be painfully obvious, is indicative of how little worth the life of a human has in the Left’s eyes. If the answer to that question is anything short of “yes”, then society is most definitely on a decline (which we already knew, but still).
 
In the case of the gorilla, yes, it was morally justifiable to have killed it. Again, it’s a GORILLA! They’re approximately six times stronger than a human. And that’s to say a full-grown human. An adult would be destroyed in a fight against a gorilla, never mind how a small child would fare.
 
So it’s this, combined with the blatant and brutal disregard of human beings within the fetus, that culminate into a culture where life is hardly worth anything. For all the “progress” the Left claims they seek, they are sending society back to the Stone Age.
 
A culture that has no value for other people’s lives is no different from the era Fred Flintstone lived in. Actually, that’s not quite right. The Flintstones were at least less savage than what the Left wants for us. They may have somehow watched television using rocks, but at least they didn’t kill someone just for the heck of it.
 
And I don’t exaggerate when I say that’s the sort of society the Left wants in the world. They would love nothing more than to have a society of like-minded people who don’t have the mental capacity to deviate in their line of thinking and thus, oppose them. They love and require a perpetually poor voting base. Likewise, they love and require a perpetually ignorant base. The same people who accuse Trump of working with Russia are the same people who ignore Hillary when she did precisely that and actually left evidence of it.
 
The same people who accuse Trump of being a sexual assaulter are the same people who supported the wife of an actual sexual assaulter. And the same people who claim Trump is a Nazi are the same people that support policy that more closely resembles Nazism than what Trump offers.
 
So returning to Sadiq Khan and London, I’m not at all surprised that he would try to blame knives for the rise of knife-related crimes in his city. He knows full well that such a measure would never solve London’s violent crime problem. And he’s more than ok with it. I won’t go as far as to say he’s a terrorist, but he does belong to a religion that establishes a very barbaric culture (go ahead, prove me wrong). So I can’t say I’m surprised that he would be willing to drive London, a previously major symbol of the West, into barbarism.
 
Unless he’s voted or thrown out of office, London is destined to fall. Maybe not to Sharia Law (though Khan definitely is making sure that happens), but almost certainly to Communism. Here’s hoping the people of London will wake up and realize what a threat socialism is to the world.
 
Acts 26:18
“To open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.