One of the funniest lines I often hear from the Left year after year is that an upcoming climate summit or conference is “the last chance” we have to “save our planet”. And recently, CNN made sure to say an upcoming climate summit is our last chance at doing just that. But yet, that’s what the Left has been saying for literally decades now.
 
Newsweek magazine also offered its own opinions on the matter of climate change, singing a very similar tune: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” Sounds scary, right? If we don’t do something now, we will be faced with a grim reality, right? Well, this was actually from an article from 1975 discussing global COOLING.
 
Let me show you some other “last chance” warnings the media or Leftists in general have perpetuated:

• “A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance” from Time magazine circa 2001.

• “Climate campaigner Mark Lynas warned ‘with time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action” from Independent, circa 2005.

• “World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change” from the New Zealand Herald, circa 2007.

• “European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference that it was ‘the world’s last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return’” from Reuters circa 2009.

 
 
And there are tons of other headlines that read very similarly, including one for the Paris Climate Accord where Michael Mann writes “Paris is probably the last chance to bring the necessary emission reductions…,” with the media singing a similar tune, saying that Paris was “the last chance”.
 
Ironically, the U.S. actually held up its end of the deal in reduction of CO2 gases AFTER it left the deal, whereas other countries like France increased their CO2 gas emission.
 
But we hear over and over again that an upcoming summit or conference of climate “leaders” and advocates will be the last chance we have to save the Earth. Over and over again, experts say that we only have one last chance at turning things around before we reach a point of no return. It’s been literal DECADES that they’ve put up this charade and we seem to be doing just fine.
 
Just like no one died from the repeal of Net Neutrality or the implementation of the GOP tax cuts (and how no one’s going to die from the ruling against Obamacare), no one is dying from man-made climate change. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING!
 
I concede the fact that the climate does change. The various ice ages the world’s sustained (and we are technically in one now) is evidence enough of that. But there is nothing to even briefly prove that we, humans, are responsible for any change in the climate. We’ve gone through five major ice ages, and more minor ones, and no one can realistically tell me that our CO2 emissions had anything to do with their beginning or end.
 
And even if any output from us actually did do it, then why in the world are these “climate leaders” and advocates all congregating and meeting in one particular location? Do they not realize that doing so forces them to EMIT MORE CO2?! These climate conferences are such a joke, with these supposed climate experts and geniuses telling us how we should live before, during and after they board gas-powered planes to travel back and forth to these places.
 
Of course, that’s part of the entire thing. “Shame on thee, but not on me” with regard to how you spend your energy. YOU are supposed to switch to hybrid or electric cars (that do jack-all in terms of reducing oil and coal usage). YOU are supposed to reduce your carbon footprint in the world.
 
Much of the same can be said about socialism, with socialists saying YOU should be more considerate of the poor while they themselves sit inside one of their multiple million-dollar homes, but this is a conversation about climate hysteria.
 
As I shared earlier, this kind of ridiculous nonsense dates back to at least 1975, if not farther back. But let’s say that 1975 is the absolute earliest you would find talks about global warming or any sort of climate change whatsoever and having only one last chance to change it. 1975 was over 40 years ago. 44 to be precise, unless you’re reading this article after April 28th, 2019, when that Newsweek article will be 45 years old by that point.
 
Roughly 45 years since the initial hysteria about a race against the clock in ensuring the survival of humanity and our planet and what do we have? A perfectly fine, habitable ecosystem, but the same hysteria year after year, summit after summit.
 
So how much longer can the Left say this sort of thing before people start collectively calling out the bullcrap that this is? Again, it’s been about 40 years of “last chances”. And it’s not like these summits are a rare occasion. They happen every year. And every time, we hear that this summit in Poland, or Canada, or Paris, or Wakanda is the last chance we have to save the Earth, when that clearly is not the case whatsoever. And yet, they keep saying it. Why?
 
Well, it’s certainly not because they are right, or even because they believe it to be right. They create climate models about what the Earth might look like 50 or 100 years from now, when next to no one will remember the asinine predictions. The point of this hysteria is not to be right, or to prove anyone wrong, but to cause enough fear in people for them to want to put into power those who would “save the planet” aka Democrats and Leftists.
 
It’s nothing more than fear-mongering over an unscientific claim that they say is as scientific as the Earth being round or gravity existing when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
They say “it’s the last chance” because it causes a reaction in people who are uninformed. It creates a sense of urgency to try and “fix” a fictitious problem by electing those who promise to do something about it when it’s all a PR stunt. The Paris Climate Accord was not intended to actually do anything about gas emissions (as evidenced by the fact that the countries that stayed in the deal INCREASED their gas emissions), it was supposed to be a sign to the world, saying “hey, these progressive, Leftist people are doing something to save the planet!” which will ironically be forgotten the next time there is a summit when THAT summit will be “the last chance”.
 
It’s not about the planet or the kids or you whatsoever. The U.S. reduced our gas emissions this year, despite our leaving the Climate Accord, but did that make the national news? We are actually doing what these Leftists claim they want to do, but does that matter? No. Because that’s not the point. The point is to attain more power for the Left. Power to influence how you live your very life.
 
Unfortunately, I cannot answer the title question. It’s largely a rhetorical question, of course, but I do wish it was a legitimate question because this nonsense has to stop. We are no more in peril of destroying our global ecosystem today than when we were first hearing these claims. Why? Because we CAN’T do that. We don’t have the power and capacity to do that even if we wanted to.
 
If you asked me to destroy the world without the use of nuclear bombs, I would not be able to do it (not that I want to, of course).
 
But the destruction or preservation of our planet is not the point of this hysteria, as I mentioned multiple times. The point is to get gullible and uninformed people to be scared to death over things that humanity (or Trump and Republicans particularly) is doing to our planet so that those who pretend to be Captain Planet get elected into office so that they can regulate how you live (but never regulate how they themselves live).
 
It’s all about power – increasing the size of the government. And it’s unfortunate that they can so often get away with these dumb claims. I sincerely hope that more and more people use logic and sound reasoning to recognize that these same people warned us decades ago that we had one last chance and we’ve had about 40 different last chances since then. At one point, that last chance ceases to be a last chance.
 
James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Let me tell you, unlike the coward Parkland cop I wrote about last week, none of these officers will claim that it was not their duty to do what they did. In Richmond, Indiana, tragedy was averted last Thursday when Richmond police officers were given a tip of a 14-year-old teenager going to a school while armed.
 
District spokeswoman Bridget Hazelbaker said that the schools in the Richmond community had received a tip of the shooter and had gone into lockdown. When police confronted the armed teen, he reportedly “shot out the glass of a locked entry door to the school, and ran inside with police officers in pursuit,” according to police.
 
According to The Daily Wire: “Police confronted the suspect at the north door, but the teen shot out the glass of one of the school’s locked doors to get inside the building. Police pursued the suspect and there was another exchange of gunfire, officials said. It ended in the south stairwell on the second floor where the teen died from ‘an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.’”
 
Indiana State Police Sergeant John Bowling said: “Someone knew something, and they said something. Local police had received information and they reacted on that very swiftly, and I think because of their swift reaction and also the swift reaction at the school that no student injuries happened.”
 
Captain Dave Bursten added: “We are very, very grateful for the person who made the call. Had they not made the call, there is no doubt in my mind that we would be having a much different conversation right now.”
 
No officers or students were harmed.
 
Richmond Mayor Dave Snow also praised police officers and school officials for their great work at impeding tragedy, saying they “did everything right today.” Unfortunately, he later went on to blame lack of gun control measures, saying the incident was “yet another example of gun irresponsibility, poor mental health awareness and access… This is only going to continue until concrete action is taken so that guns do not fall into the hands of our kids. The irresponsibility that leads to a child walking into a school with a gun is unacceptable.”
 
It is unacceptable, but no amount of regulation would’ve stopped this. A 14-year-old is not allowed to have a gun, in case you didn’t know. I don’t know how he managed to get his hands on one, but gun control didn’t prevent this tragedy. A miracle prevented this tragedy.
 
And I don’t think I am overstating how important that tip was by calling that a miracle. Apart from the poor soul that had either the mental instability or the evil heart (or both) to attempt what he attempted to do, no one else died from this. No innocent child, no faculty member, no police officer, and they are the ones who were most at risk.
 
We really must thank God for this.
 
Now, I could go on to make this article about how no amount of gun control prevented this, but I think I’ve already made my point pretty clear. The Richmond Mayor, being a politician, is clearly just trying to score political points and insist that further gun control measures should be implemented, but he is completely wrong in that case. Still, I won’t go further into that topic of conversation because I am just glad that no innocent life was lost in this incident.
 
I don’t know who the tipper was or how they managed to get this kind of accurate information relating to the potential shooter, but it is a very good thing that he or she did what they did.
 
But this is a great example of what happens when police actually do their darn job. I know I talked about him in length at the end of last week, but Broward County (FL) Deputy Scot Peterson doesn’t hold a candle stick to any of these officers. Now, I assume there was more than just one officer who confronted the would-be shooter, so they had the number advantage that Peterson didn’t have, but they also knew that they ran a risk intercepting and engaging the suspect anyway. Any one of their lives could’ve been lost by a simple confrontation, and there definitely was a gunfight that ensued, so any of the officers could’ve lost life or limb, and they knew that perfectly well.
 
Because that is precisely what a police officer is supposed to do, as I explained in the last article. “Protect and Serve” is not just a motto, but pretty much a code for law enforcement.
 
And let’s not forget that the Broward County Sherriff’s office and the FBI could’ve also prevented the tragedy at Stoneman Douglas. If you remember, they were acutely aware of the large and real possibility of a school shooting happening, but did not follow up on that whatsoever. So it’s not just Scot Peterson who was apathetic regarding the Florida shooting, but so was the FBI and the Sherriff’s office.
 
Richmond police were given information about a shooter, took it seriously, and acted swiftly. As a result, the only life lost was the one that would’ve taken the lives of others. Still tragic, since any loss of life is a tragedy, but if reports are accurate that it was a self-inflicted wound, there wasn’t much officers could’ve done in that situation.
 
Of course, officers were ready to kill the shooter if need be, but if they could’ve simply arrested him, that’s what they would’ve gone for. So the kid taking his own life is not something the officers could’ve had much of a chance of preventing.
 
Of course, I don’t know exactly what happened in that situation. There reportedly was an exchange of gunfire that ended “in the south stairwell on the second floor”, where the shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I don’t know the layout of the school or how close the officers were to getting the kid, but I assume he felt there was no alternative at that point. I don’t know how much of an opportunity police had to convince him not to kill himself, if any at all. So that’s tragic, but at least the guy had no opportunity to actually cause harm to innocent kids and faculty.
 
God bless the man or woman that tipped off the police about the shooter, otherwise this article would’ve been about something completely different, and very similar to other articles discussing school shootings, unfortunately.
 
I won’t rail on the Richmond Mayor much for insinuating that gun control would’ve prevented this just as well, if not better than police and the school district did because we breathe a sigh of relief over the fact that a school shooting was expertly prevented.
 
Here’s hoping tragedy can be prevented in the future, not simply through a miraculous tip and through police response to it, but through encouraging hearts and minds to follow Christ and His teachings. That would truly be the only way tragedies like these can be put to an end.
 
Psalm 77:14
“You are the God who works wonders; you have made known your might among the peoples.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Do you want to know what annoys me more than a cowardly cop? A cowardly cop who claims he has no legal duty to act in an extreme situation.
 
That’s just what happened in a courtroom recently, where Deputy Scot Peterson, the cop who stood outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during an active shooter situation, and his lawyer, Michael Piper, told Judge Englander Henning: “We want to say [Peterson] had an obligation, but the law isn’t that. From a legal standpoint, there was no duty.”
 
The judge was quick to dismiss such a claim, saying that Peterson had an “obligation to act reasonably” regarding the shooting.
 
This is a wrongful death suit brought about by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow Pollack, died along 16 other victims of the Parkland shooting.
 
Here’s a short run-down of the events that unfolded on the day of the shooting from the Deputy’s perspective, which was confirmed by Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel: Peterson radioed in that he was hearing gunshots. He was standing outside the building, listening to the shots, and radioed in “shots fired.” He had arrived on scene shortly after the attack started, but stood outside for five minutes until the attack concluded, according to Today.com.
 
Now, let me argue this particular point: I don’t blame Peterson for having been afraid in that situation, if he even was afraid. Anyone would be afraid in that situation and no one wants to be in such a situation. But bravery is not the absence of fear, it’s taking action despite fear. So Deputy Peterson was most definitely not brave in this situation, if he indeed was afraid, which I assume he was.
 
But that is one thing. It is an entirely different thing to argue in court that he has NO LEGAL DUTY to respond when he most definitely does! As a police officer, it’s 100% his DUTY to protect and serve. Such an idea is so important, it is often featured on the side of their vehicles. The guy’s lawyer is trying to point to a policy within Broward County’s active shooter situation which says that officers “may” engage in an active shooter scenario, not shall. Such a policy is horrendous and it is the antithesis of a police officer’s duty to protect the lives of civilians.
 
Now, Deputy Scot Peterson failed to perform his duty as a deputy of Broward County. And that’s bad, but what’s worse is the belief that he had NO legal responsibility to act in any way. This tells me he has absolutely no remorse about his inaction on the day of the shooting.
 
When something major happens, people tend to have regrets. “Maybe if I had done this instead” is a typical thought that goes through people’s heads. For him and his lawyer to argue that Peterson had no legal duty to act in that situation is horribly offensive (not the sissy Leftist use of the word. I mean actually offensive) and highlights his rottenness as a human being.
 
Again, if he failed to act because he was scared, that’s one thing. Someone who is a cop and is scared to do his job does not deserve the job. But someone who is a cop, is scared to do his job, and then argues that he has no obligation to do his job is someone who is seriously devoid of sympathy, remorse and most of all, a heart.
 
I get that he’s trying to protect himself in this lawsuit, but to argue he did not have to act WHEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST TASKS ENTRUSTED TO COPS IS TO ACT IN SUCH A SCENARIO is downright awful.
 
In articles where I talked about the shooting, I would sometimes blame the coward cop who stood outside doing nothing. Apart from blaming the FBI and County Sheriff’s office for not having followed up on serious threats, a big part of the blame fell on Peterson. Whenever I would blame him, I referred to him as the “coward cop”. Now, I can’t say the same.
 
Now, I call him the “evil cop”. Not acting in such a situation due to fear is understandable (of course, him being a cop, it was less understandable because cops are supposed to risk their very lives for others. They carry guns!). But I honestly have doubts on whether or not he was actually afraid. I argued earlier that he probably was, because anyone would be, but I’m not entirely sure. Because a coward will often feel remorse about their cowardice. The way this sounds, it appears to me that the cop wasn’t afraid, but apathetic.
 
He couldn’t care less about protecting others, which is why he doesn’t feel remorse over what he did. That much is evident by the fact he argues he had no responsibility to act when his job largely calls on him to act in such a situation.
 
Andrew Pollack, when he filed the suit, tweeted the following: “I filed a wrongful death suit against Deputy Peterson today. I want to expose that coward so bad. Wherever he goes, I want people to recognize him and say that’s one of the cowards of Broward. The SRO that let those children and teachers die on the 3rd floor!”
 
I totally understand why he’s saying this. Being a cop and not responding to an active shooter situation is cowardly. But again, I’m not so sure he was simply afraid.
 
Now, I could be totally wrong, of course. After all, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what went through his mind at the time, and I simply don’t know the guy personally. But his pathetic argument in the court room shows no sympathy for the victims that he failed to protect.
 
Again, cowards tend to feel remorse over their cowardice. A cop who could’ve done something but failed to do it tends to feel remorse over his inaction. Peterson could’ve done something to stop the shooter. Being a cop, he had a weapon with him, and this being a school and therefore a gun-free zone, he had the best chance at stopping the shooter before he could cause much more damage. That was his very duty. And not only did he fail to do it, have every opportunity in the world to do it, and even considerable time to do it, he does not even think he had any obligation to any of the 17 victims to try and go in and protect them. Not even TRY.
 
In one of the Batman films by Christopher Nolan, there is a very famous phrase that goes like this: “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” I’m not saying Peterson should’ve died that day. I’m saying he had the duty to go in there and do something, even if it cost him his life, and he failed to do that. Actually, he didn’t fail to do that, because that would indicate some sort of intention to act. He DIDN’T WANT to do that. And now, he’s seeing himself become the villain in the eyes of the victim’s families, and many others.
 
Batman may have failed to save Rachel, but he was at least trying to save her. Peterson wasn’t even trying to help those kids and faculty, when he very easily could have.
 
And now, he says he had no duty to act? What a sick joke.
 
Here’s hoping Andrew Pollack wins the suit (which is pretty likely) and there is at least some justice for the Parkland victims.
 
James 4:17
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
 
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.

For years and years now, maybe even decades, we’ve had quite the war on Christmas on our hands. It is for this reason that Donald Trump makes it a point to say “we can say ‘Merry Christmas’ again”. Leftists will mock that, saying that we could always say it, but stories like the one I am about to share prove Trump right on this. There definitely is a war on Christmas.
 
You see, the principal at Manchester Elementary School in Nebraska is so against Christmas, she makes the Grinch look reasonable.
 
Jennifer Sinclair, the principal of this school, sent a list of guidelines of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to have or wear inside the school during the Christmas season. Here’s the list of what is considered “not acceptable” to Sinclair:
 

• Santas or Christmas items on worksheets

 

• Christmas trees in classrooms

 

• Elf on the Shelf – that’s Christmas-related

 

• Singing Christmas Carols or playing Christmas music

 

• Sending a Scholastic book that is a Christmas book – that’s Christmas-related

 

• Making a Christmas ornament as a gift – This assumes that the family has a Christmas tree which assumes they celebrate Christmas. I challenge the thought of, ‘Well they can just hang it somewhere else.’ (By the way, those are Sinclair’s words in the list, not mine.)

 

• Candy Cane

 

• Red/Green items – traditional Christmas colors

 

• Reindeer

 

• Christmas videos/movies and/or characters from Christmas movies

 
 
So that is a pretty loony list, but just wait and see what Sinclair deems acceptable:
 

• Gifts to students

 

• Snowmen, snow women, snow people

 

• Snowflakes

  

• Gingerbread people

 

• Holidays Around the World (in other words, celebrating literally any other holiday)

 

• Sledding

 

• Hot chocolate

 

• Polar bears, penguins

 

• Scarves, boots, earmuffs, and hats

 
 So basically, just about anything that is not related to Christmas is fine.
 
Now, let’s look over these lists again. In the “unacceptable” list, we find things like Santa, whom I suppose could be considered a saint, even though he’s the secular symbol for Christmas. But what is perhaps most puzzling is finding candy cane on that list.
 
The reason Sinclair gives for banning that item is that it’s shaped like a J and she argues it’s supposed to represent Jesus. “Historically, the shape is a ‘J’ for Jesus. The red is for the blood of Christ, and the white is a symbol of his resurrection.” Now, that’d be a strange argument anyway, but she then follows that up by saying: “This [ban] would also include different colored candy canes.”
 
So then what’s the point of pointing out the supposed symbolism behind the colors of the candy cane as being the blood and resurrection of Christ if differently-colored candy canes are also banned?
 
Never mind the fact that it’s not exactly proven that candy canes have that shape because they represent Jesus. No one has pinpointed the historical roots of the reason for candy canes to be shaped the way they are.
 
But even if they do represent Jesus in any way, what’s this woman’s problem? She’s literally taking candy from kids at this point.
 
As far as the “acceptable” list goes, I would laugh at the fact she includes “snow people” and not just snowmen, or even snow women, but considering this woman is in the education business, she is in charge of educating kids. Of course, and to the surprise of no one, I doubt that’s what she’s doing, opting to indoctrinate kids rather than educate them. Academia may be mostly specific for college, but it does technically include all academic institutions aka schools at any level.
 
Between you and me, I don’t think snowmen have the mental capacity to question basic biology… not that snowmen are actually biologically male. The only thing that makes snowmen “men” is what the kids put on it, such as a top hat or other male clothes. Snow women might wear female clothes, but I doubt there are snow “people” in as far as if you put male clothes on a snowman, it’s a snowman; ditto for snow men with female clothes. Depending on the clothing choice, that’s the snow person’s gender, I guess is what I’m trying to say. Regardless, that’s just a dumb tangent that “educators” like Sinclair force us to go into because she is the one who included “snow people” as if snowmen could be transgender.
 
But in any case, the good news is that this lunacy was quickly put to a halt, as the Elkhorn School District placed the principal in administrative leave (no indications as to the time of her return).
 
The school district told Fox News: “The memo (sent by Sinclair) does not reflect the policy of Elkhorn Public Schools regarding holiday symbols in the school.” The district’s policy regarding holiday props says that “Christmas trees, Santa Claus and Easter eggs and bunnies are considered to be secular, seasonal symbols and may be displayed as teaching aids provided they do not disrupt the instructional program for students.”
 
And that is something that I wanted to talk about too. Santa Claus, Christmas trees, presents, all of these things are the secular part of Christmas. The original meaning of Christmas is the celebration of our Savior’s birth, who was conceived by a virgin, and who would go on to live a perfect life so that He would be an appropriate sacrifice at the Cross, where He would die for the sins of whosoever believeth in Him.
 
We are supposed to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior on the holiest of days. But the secular world was against that, and set up the same holiday to be about gift-giving and spending time with your family. Now, I’m not completely against that. As a kid, I would love getting gifts for Christmas. Spending time with your family is also a worthwhile deal. However, the problem I have with these things is that they come to replace the original, intended meaning of Christmas which is, as I said, the celebration of our Savior’s human, yet holy birth.
 
The reason Trump insists that we can say “Merry Christmas” again is that saying “Happy Holidays” (which even that is being attacked by the Left for including “holy” in it) takes the focus away from Christ. Yes, I am also happy about Hanukkah (or Chanukah) and the meaning behind it, being a Jewish holiday, but I believe the birth of our Lord and Savior is considerably more important than the rededication of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem after a pretty great Jewish victory against the Seleucids (Syrian-Greeks).
 
For whomever celebrates Hanukkah, I would happily wish them a Happy Hanukkah. But what’s more important is the birth of the Messiah, foretold to come throughout the Old Testament.
 
So the exchanging of gifts, the gathering of the families, the kissing under the mistletoe, and everything else while good in my eyes, should not take away the focus of the holiday.
 
Although, I do find some irony in the fact that a Leftist (yes, I can tell she’s Leftist. Read those lists again and tell me otherwise) is attacking the secular part of the holiday that was set up by Leftists of the past who wanted to shift the focus away from Christ. Still, it’s also pretty clear that she is no fan of Jesus, considering her reasoning behind some of these bans, particularly candy canes.
 
Thankfully, the school district actually did the right thing here and placed her on administrative leave over it. Of course, I don’t think she should lose her job over this, but let’s just say I am no fan of Principal Jennifer Sinclair at the moment.
 
Of course, the reason she was removed wasn’t simply because of her outrageous demands but because such demands were actually against district policy, so I won’t go around saying that the school district loves Jesus, but at least this gutting of Christmas was stopped this time.
 
Galatians 4:4-5
“But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”
 
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.

There is a new research poll from the Pew Research Center that asked citizens from 27 different countries if they would want more, less, or about as many immigrants coming in as they do now. There was not a single country in which the majority of the people wanted more immigrants.
 
Now, I know that there are considerably more countries in the world than just 27, so I can’t exactly say that not one country in the world wants more immigration, but of the ones surveyed (including Germany), not one of them wanted more.
 
According to Pew Research Center: “Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country, while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants. Just 14% say their countries should allow more immigrants.”
 
In other words, across all the countries surveyed, 45% said they wanted less or no immigration, 36% were okay with current levels, and only 14% said they wanted more immigration.
 
I won’t list all 27 countries because that’s not necessary, but some of the important ones to look into are countries like Greece, where 82% said they wanted less or no immigration, 15% about the same number, and only 2% wanted more. That is quite telling of the situation in Greece.
 
Hungary is similar in that 72% say they want less or no immigration, 22% say they want the same number, and only 2% say they want more. Of European nations, Spain was more evenly split, with 30% wanting less or no immigration, 39% wanting the same number as current levels, and 28% saying they want more.
 
Of Asian nations, Indonesia most strongly did not want more immigration, with 54% saying they want less or no immigration, 31% saying they want the same number and only 8% saying they want more.
 
In Japan, it’s a little more interesting. Only 13% say they want less or no immigration compared to 23% who say they want more immigration. That’s the only country where there are more people who want more immigration than there are people who want less or no immigration. However, a vast majority, 58%, say they want current levels, so that still means the majority does not want more immigration. And I can understand why there are more people who want more immigrants than there are those who want less because their birth rates have been on a dive for decades now and need a solution. Immigration could provide such a solution.
 
Israel stood at 73% wanting less or no immigration, 15% wanting current levels and 9% wanting more immigration. This makes sense considering the constant danger they are under thanks to Hamas (and shame on the U.N. for not even condemning their terrorist attacks. I mean, seriously, not even condemn them? If they don’t want to do anything about it, that’s bad, but they won’t even acknowledge the terror Hamas causes? That’s even worse).
 
At any rate, Russia also overwhelmingly wants less immigration, with 67% saying so, while 23% say they want current levels and only 7% want more.
 
As far as the U.S. goes, it’s a little bit closer. 29% say they want less or no immigration, with 44% saying they want the same numbers, and 24% saying they want more. Still a majority of wanting less or the same, but closer than I’d like.
 
Now, according to Breitbart, “When Americans get to choose how many immigrants they want added a year to the U.S. population, about 6-in-10 favor a national immigration policy that admits anywhere between 500,000 to zero immigrants a year.” This is important to note because the U.S. takes in about 1.5 million legal immigrants a year, so 60% say they would want to drop those numbers by more than a million. Of course, that poll was from early 2018, so I do not know if there has been much of a change (and I would expect at least some), but still.
 
Now, here’s the thing. The Pew Research Center did not specify whether or not they are talking about legal or illegal immigrants, which makes a world of difference. I think Pew is largely talking about immigration in general, legal or illegal, so it’s hard to discern how many citizens in each country surveyed supported less legal or illegal immigration, but I suppose that doesn’t matter all too much.
 
Most people either want less or current levels of immigration. This still indicates that people largely reject mass immigration plans like the U.N.’s “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” which would really be anything but. It would not be safe and would definitely not be orderly. And unfortunately, it definitely would be regular.
 
But returning to the poll numbers and not discerning between legal or illegal immigration, I would personally be okay with current levels of LEGAL immigration. In my opinion, if you pay your dues, wait your time, and go through the process the right way, there really should not be any reason to deny you access into the country. Such a process tends to include vetting to make sure the country does not allow someone with a criminal past or gang affiliation to enter the country. As long as there are no problems there, I see no reason to deny anyone entry into the country through legal means.
 
Of course, I could be biased considering I was once a legal immigrant (and now naturalized American) myself, but I feel that this is a sound and logical argument.
 
However, the kind of immigration reduction I want here is illegal immigration. I want a wall at the southern border and I still believe Trump can do just that.
 
So if I were asked the same question by Pew Research Center, I suppose I would answer that I’m okay with current levels, unless it is specified that it includes illegal immigrants. If it does include illegals, then I would definitely want less immigration (not zero immigration altogether, but significantly less. Zero illegal immigrants).
 
So that is the biggest problem I have with the Pew Research Center on this. They do not specify. They ask if people want more, less, none or same numbers of immigration. They don’t specify regarding legal or illegal immigration.
 
And that’s something that really bothers me. Honestly, every time a Leftist cries over the “poor immigrants” at the border, I get ticked off. There is a very clear difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant and whenever the Left IGNORES that difference, it annoys me to no end.
 
I am a LEGAL immigrant (well, a U.S. citizen now, but you get my point). Me and my family went through the process the exact right way, paying our dues, waiting our time, doing everything by the book. So I dare any Leftist lunatic to rope me in with an illegal. We are not the same.
 
My family loves this country. Illegals want to take advantage of her, coming in, taking government paychecks, and illegally voting for people who will implement the same disastrous policies that plundered their countries of origin. I wonder where they would go if America fell to socialism and it were virtually no different from other Socialist Latin American countries.
 
I just hope we never get to that situation. But returning to the poll, it does tell me something in particular: most people reject the globalists’ dream of mass migration.
 
Globalists foolishly believe everyone agrees with them, or at least a vast majority do, with a few odd-jobs disagreeing for no good reason apart from their supposed racism and bigotry. Reality is far different. On the issue of immigration, they are soundly rejected. And in France, they are also being rejected on climate change policy, to some extent.
 
Of course, there’s not a single globalist that could care even a little. Like I said in the article discussing France’s own rejection of immigration, globalists are not held accountable for the chaos they sow. They answer to no one but themselves. 99.999% of the world could hate them and they couldn’t care less, with the 0.001% being themselves.
 
They are not elected representatives. They are global communists. Still, I am definitely glad to see many of these countries rejecting an influx of immigration as much as they do.
 
Again, it also comes down to legal or illegal immigration, but the rejection of mass migration comes along with these results all-the-same.
 
Now, the Pew poll also talks about emigration, where people leave those countries, and people also think that’s a problem, but it largely has to do with the fact that emigration happens largely in regards to jobs aka outsourcing and things like that. Not really a part of the conversation for this article, but I felt it was important to note if you were looking into the actual poll.
 
But that is entirely a tangent that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of this article. Like I said, I am glad to see such numbers, and I completely understand why the Japanese would be more willing to increase immigration than to reduce it.
 
Philippians 3:20
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In another great video (below) from Campus Reform, Cabot Phillips traveled to Georgia, specifically to Savannah College of Art and Design, where there exists a building named after conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
 
At this college, a number of students have signed a petition to rename the building and remove Clarence Thomas from any association with the building and/or the school.
 
Cabot Phillips wanted to understand just why the students were signing the petition and just why they felt compelled to rename the building to something that is not associated with Justice Clarence Thomas. And if you think any one of them came up with even a remotely decent explanation, you’d be horribly wrong.
 
You see, none of them could really come up with a solid answer. Many simply shrugged their shoulders, saying “I don’t know” or “I haven’t done enough research.” So they can’t even clumsily point to Thomas’ sexual assault allegations that came up very similarly to Kavanaugh’s allegations back when Thomas was a nominee to the Supreme Court.
 
Of course, even pointing that out brings with it a share of problems, but not even one of them even thought of it. They literally would say or signify that they simply don’t know why they are against him, they just are.
 
Cabot went further, asking them if there was anything the students could point to as the biggest reason for wanting to remove Thomas’ name from the building. Once again, they could not come up with anything… except for one particular student who gave perhaps the single stupidest answer I’ve heard in a long time.
 
A student wearing a New Orleans Saints beanie said the following: “[Thomas] is a historical figure… so is Hitler.”
 
No, there was nothing in between the things I quoted. There was nothing else that he said. That ellipsis was not to cut out unimportant bits and focus on the important ones, that ellipsis was to signify the time spent from one part of the quote to the other, similar to dialogue.
 
The kid’s literal argument was that Clarence Thomas is a historical figure, and because Hitler was also a historical figure, Thomas should have his name removed.
 
Now, I will cut the kid some slack. He does appear to be smiling when he said that, as if to know he just said some seriously dumb crap, but still. That is hardly an argument.
 
I’ve heard some ludicrous comparisons to Hitler before. Comparisons between, say, Trump and Hitler. And the reasons given are wrong and ignorant. People will say “they are both white supremacists” or other ridiculous things. But those kinds of comparisons, though erroneous, are pretty subjectively understandable. People consider the concept of a wall to be racist, even though it’s only meant to protect the border and the rule of law, without interjecting race. However, this comparison, though not directed at Trump, has to be the dumbest one I’ve ever heard.
 
People can say Trump is a Nazi all they want; they’d be wrong. But that gives them some subjective reason to not like him. This answer does not even touch on similarities of ideology (of which there are none because Hitler was a socialist and Thomas is a conservative). It does not even touch on similarities of policy (again, of which there are none). The argument is: Thomas is a historical figure. So is Hitler. Therefore, Thomas bad man.
 
There is literally no logical steps taken to go from not liking Thomas to comparing him to Hitler in this instance.
 
There is this little analogy I use sometimes: A farmer has to wake up very early every day, and he’s tired of it. He notices that whenever his rooster starts clucking in the morning, the sun would rise. As a result, he kills the rooster so that the sun will stop rising. Of course, the sun still rises anyway.
 
You see, there was no direct relationship between the rooster clucking and the sun rising. It’s just that the rooster clucks to signify the sun is about to rise, but the rooster does not make the sun rise.
 
But the farmer in that analogy at least noticed some sort of pattern, even if he was ultimately wrong. No cause-effect relationship. The student here draws no pattern. His line of thinking is: Thomas is a historical figure, as was Hitler, so that CLEARLY means Thomas must be like Hitler.
 
Never mind the fact that OBAMA is also a historical figure. Never mind that Bill and Hillary Clinton are historical figures (Bill more than Hillary, I’d say). Don’t pay attention to any of that.
 
Now, again, the kid was smiling, almost laughing, when he said that. I take that as he knows what he just said is super dumb, so I will try to cut him some slack, but I hope he at least learns the meaning of constructing an argument.
 
Of course, we could also argue about Thomas being a historical figure, but that’s not the point of my rebuking of the Saints fan.
 
That argument can hardly be called an argument. And that is where I will leave that since that is mostly a tangent for the main purpose of this article.
 
Returning to the overall video, there wasn’t a single person who could come up with a reason at all to remove Thomas’ name. One of the students tried to make it about politics, saying that the campus is liberal and that Thomas “degrades” that, which can also hardly be considered an argument. Cabot makes sure to point out the hypocrisy of liberalism, saying that liberals are supposed to be “open-minded and tolerant”. The student replies: “I guess, but I think that’s just a way to twist the concept of liberalism.”
 
Sweetheart (the student is a girl), what does the Left tend to do to appeal to people? Aside from trying to be hipster and cool to appeal to millennials, they point to the “racism” of the Republicans and the “inclusive” nature of the Left. The Left is the ones who say they are “open-minded and tolerant”. Cabot isn’t twisting it, the Left is.
 
We know very well that the Left is not tolerant and open-minded (as evidenced by the fact that this student herself essentially argues against Thomas’ name for the building because the college is liberal and he is conservative), so if anyone is twisting the concept of liberalism, it’s the Left.
 
Now, thankfully, not every single student interviewed by Cabot said they should rename it. One of the students brought up that just because you disagree with someone, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify their accomplishments. So not every student there is being completely indoctrinated, but there are a good number of them who are.
 
And make no mistake, this is prototypical indoctrination. Those students believe the things they believe not because they arrived at those conclusions by themselves, but because other people have taught them to believe those things.
 
This much is clear when they sign a petition to remove Clarence Thomas’ name from a school building but cannot come up with any particular reason as to why, apart from that’s just the way they feel.
 
This is what comes out of indoctrination. Mindless pawns useful to the Left. Clarence Thomas, to these kids, is bad. Not because they know anything about him, but because other people told them he’s bad and they have no sense for wishing to learn more about him to verify the claims made against him.
 
Then, these kids grow up to “believe all women” whenever a Leftist woman accuses a conservative man of something, whether or not it’s proven he did it.
 
But in this case, I arrive at a dilemma. What is better? Being uninformed or being misinformed? I, for one, believe it’s better to be uninformed. These kids, given their answers, are largely uninformed about Clarence Thomas. Again, they didn’t point to the sexual assault allegations, and the one kid that compared him to Hitler made a very stupid comparison that is not even up for debate as to why it’s wrong.
 
So I think these kids are in a better situation than someone who would bring up the aforementioned things or would make a more common comparison to Hitler (which is largely becoming stale, regardless of who you direct the comparison to), because such a person would be largely misinformed and remain grounded in their beliefs, whereas someone who is uninformed can be properly informed and could perhaps be persuaded to our side.
 
However much this may be the case here, I don’t know. But there is at least some level of hope for these kids to be properly informed and help them understand why it makes no sense to wish to rename the building currently named after Justice Thomas.
 
Here’s hoping that is the case, because it could just as easily go the other way, unfortunately. This is academia, after all. It’s long ceased to be a place of higher education. It’s now a place for higher indoctrination.
 
Proverbs 18:15
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
 
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.

Now, I know we are about two years removed from the 2020 presidential election, but it is always good to see numbers that say something very good about Trump, particularly in his chances to be reelected.
 
And yes, I know that odds-making sites are not exactly national polls like Rasmussen (who have Trump at 50% approval) and other polls (that also have Trump with good approval ratings), but considering how often fake news interjects into national polls (not necessarily the case every time, but it happens often enough to take notice, particularly during the 2016 election) I would have to say that odds-making sites probably have as much credibility as polls do.
 
BetOnline, an odds-making site, recently released a list of favorites to win the 2020 presidential election, and currently have Trump at 7-5 odds to win the presidency. That is considerably ahead of the number two options, who are Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Beto O’Rourke, who both are at 10/1 odds to win the presidency.
 
Now, math is not my strong suit. I honestly had to look at these numbers for a while to understand just why these numbers were great. In my analysis, I noticed that the number for Trump, 7/5, translates to 1.4. And BetOnline had a column that read “American Odds”, which showed Trump was at +140, which makes mathematical sense.
 
That number is considerably smaller than the +1000 that Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke had, and things began to click a little.
 
You see, back when Kevin Durant joined the Golden State Warriors (yes, I’m talking about basketball to relate to this article), oddsmakers had the Warriors winning the championship at something like 2/3. I don’t remember the exact number, but the first number was smaller than the second, so I figured that the smaller the ratio is, the better the odds.
 
As a result, looking at these numbers for the 2020 election, I can see that Trump just SMOKES the competition.
 
Again, Harris and O’Rourke (who is here for some reason, despite having lost his Senate bid) have 10/1 odds at winning. They are tied for number two.
 
BetOnline also has Joe Biden at number three (12/1), followed by Bernie Sanders (16/1), Mike Pence (20/1), Cory Booker (25/1), Elizabeth Warren (25/1), Tulsi Gabbard (25/1), Amy Klobuchar (33/1), Kirsten Gillibrand (33/1), Michael Bloomberg (33/1), Ro Khanna (33/1, who is a congressman from California), Tom Steyer (33/1), Ben Shapiro (40/1) and finally, Michael Avenatti (40/1).
 
For reference, back in August, BetOnline had Trump winning with 3/2 odds, Harris with 10/1 (O’Rourke wasn’t even on the list), Sanders with 14/1, Biden with 16/1, Pence with 16/1 and Warren with 20/1.
 
So we can see fairly decent improvement for Trump, who already had pretty good odds back during the summer, and we can also see some bad drop-offs for Sanders and Warren. Recently, Sanders has been discovered to have spent $300,000 in a single month on private jet travel, further showing how hypocritical he is. Although, I do not necessarily think that alone would’ve caused this drop-off and this was discovered very recently.
 
However, Warren’s drop-off could probably be more accurately pointed out. In fact, I literally talked about this late last week, when I talked about a New York Times article basically casting doubt on her presidential chances.
 
The fact she showed everyone how not Native American she is and still tried to claim the results of the DNA test proved her heritage (and MSM went along with it for all of 5 minutes) is the likeliest cause for such a massive drop-off.
 
As far as Biden’s jump from 16/1 to 12/1, the Washington Examiner says that this movement comes after he said he was the “most qualified person to be president”. I don’t know if such a blatant (and wrong) statement would actually cause a shift, particularly such a massive one, but I do not really have much better of an explanation apart from the drop-offs for Sanders and Warren simply gave him the opportunity to rise.
 
But as far as Trump’s chances look, it might come as a surprise to some to see his chances only improving since the last time these odds came out. Matter of fact, he has actually widened his lead from number two. Again, Harris sat at number two back in August with 10/1. Her odds haven’t improved, though they are fairly good by comparison to those behind her. And yet, even despite the “blue wave” back in the midterms, Trump’s chances have only gotten better.
 
Not to mention that approval ratings have maintained a steady pace, if not growing, and his disapproval ratings fell from 58% back in December of last year to 52%, according to the RealClearPolitics average (which had pretty accurate polls for the midterms).
 
Now, again, we are two years away from the 2020 elections. An awful lot of things can happen in the span of two years. For example, back in 2014, no one had any sort of clue as to who would be the Republican nominee (people had a fairly good idea of who would be the Democrat one) and who could potentially become the next president.
 
Trump was nowhere in the picture at this time four years ago. Back then, the only people I could see running were Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, maybe Romney again, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and maybe a few others. I truly had no idea who would be running and who would be the nominee. And then, Trump comes along and sets politics ablaze, crushing his Republican opponents in the polls and remaining the frontrunner throughout the primaries.
 
In the span of two years, we went from not knowing who would be running or even who would be the best person to run, to supporting one of the most influential and richest people in America to become President under the banner of “Make America Great Again.”
 
So we truly have no idea what will happen from this point to November 3rd, 2020. However, it’s pretty clear that the results of the midterm elections, despite Democrats regaining the House, do not show Trump’s favorability waning. His approval rating, as I said, is still holding strong, if not growing. So it makes sense that oddsmakers have Trump getting even better results and having even better odds at winning.
 
Now, this alone is not the end-all, be-all of the likelihood of Trump’s victory in 2020. Sometimes, you get surprises. For example, returning to a basketball reference to drive my point, the Miami Heat were the favorites to win the 2011 NBA title at -180, with the Dallas Mavericks winning it at +160, according to sbnation.com, a basketball site.
 
But, as those who follow basketball know, the Mavericks won in 6 games, winning 4-2. So even though the Heat were favorites to win, that did not happen. Of course, politics are different from basketball and I doubt Trump would disappear like LeBron did, but that does indicate we do not truly know what could happen.
 
Still, as the numbers are today, they suggest that Trump would OBLITERATE any opponent he were to face in the election. And if things continue like this, I see no reason for Trump not to get reelected in 2020.
 
I know very well I will be voting for him, and hopefully, he will get a little more help from Republicans in Congress that they might retake the House and perhaps even grow in the Senate again.
 
Here’s hoping that is the case.
 
James 1:17
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”
 
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.

Shortly after releasing Warren’s DNA test results that proved she was actually less Native American than your average white person, and after most media sources tried to spin it as an actual victory against Trump who long questioned her supposed heritage, people realized just how badly Warren had messed up here. I even shared article after article showing the media basically turning their backs on Warren.
 
As a nice little reminder, let me show you some of the headlines from the MSM following the realization Warren was a fraud:
 

• WaPo: “Elizabeth Warren angers prominent Native Americans with politically fraught DNA test.”

 

• CNN: “Elizabeth Warren might have actually made things worse with her DNA gambit”

 

• Politico: “Warren stumbles with ‘Native American’ rollout.”

 
 
There were others which I pointed out in my article talking about the MSM essentially betraying Warren after her colossal failure of both believing being 1/1024th Native American makes you Native American and releasing the test results even though she knew that she is only 1/1024th Native American.
 
If you remember what I said in that article (don’t blame you if you don’t), I said “We will have to wait and see if this train-wreck properly derails Elizabeth Warren’s chances at a 2020 run.”
 
Well, it looks like the New York Times feels the same way.
 
Here’s what the New York Times had to say: “… nearly two months after Ms. Warren released the test results and drew hostile reactions from prominent tribal leaders, the lingering cloud over her likely presidential campaign has only darkened. Conservatives have continued to ridicule her. More worrisome to supporters of Ms. Warren’s presidential ambitions, she has yet to allay criticism from grass-roots progressive groups, liberal political operatives and other potential 2020 allies who complain that she put too much emphasis on the controversial field of racial science – and, in doing so, played into Mr. Trump’s hands.”
 
Obviously, this doesn’t necessarily mean Warren won’t run in 2020, and that’s not what the NYT is alluding to, but even the NYT expresses worries and doubts about her 2020 campaign. Were she to run in 2020, this would hang over her head for anyone to use, both Democrat and Republican.
 
More-so than the belief that she was Native American when she wasn’t, what would hurt her is the fact she BENEFITED from calling herself Native American. That is something that could particularly damage her. As a result, someone who was once considered a possible frontrunner for the Democrat ticket in 2020 has fallen to perhaps even being considered a liability to a political party that makes it a point to talk strictly about race. Frankly, if Warren weren’t a woman, I doubt she would consider, at this point, even running.
 
Her gender is the only thing that she has going for herself because she belongs to a party where that is actually important, not whether or not she would make a good leader.
 
But the mere fact that even the New York Times believes the test was such a failure for Warren that they honestly have doubts about whether or not she would run, and whether or not she would be the best person to run is quite astounding.
 
Again, the media initially ran with the story that Warren’s test results PROVED her Native American ancestry. Recently, while surfing YouTube, I came across a video (which I didn’t watch) from The Daily Show with Trevor Noah titled: “Elizabeth Warren Proves Her Native American Heritage.” This is the sort of story they ran… until a few days later when actually smart people noticed her results showed Warren is whiter than tooth paste.
 
For decades, she was considered a Leftist star. And she very well may still be considered that, but definitely not to the extent that she was in the past. She used to pretend she is Native American. Now, she can’t do that, lest she be called out for appropriating their culture, which is something the Left loves to do to everyone else.
 
Now, all of this does not necessarily mean she is done for as a politician. She won her reelection bid in 2018 in spite of this (or because her district is heavily Democrat-occupied) so all is not lost for her. But there is no denying this test seriously has stopped any momentum she may have had into trying to become the 46th President of the United States.
 
That's not to say she won’t run, but that is to say that she has a lot to tackle were she to run. Maybe too much for her to believe she could overcome it.
 
And this NYT article does not mean they do not want her to run in 2020. But if even they recognize that she stepped on it, then I don’t think they have very much hope for her.
 
Now, this is largely a tangent that hardly has anything to do with the subject matter, but the NYT also says the following: “Ms. Warren has also troubled advocates of racial equality and justice, who say her attempt to document ethnicity with a DNA test gave validity to the idea that race is determined by blood – a bedrock principle for white supremacists and others who believe in racial hierarchies.”
 
While this doesn’t relate to Warren in 2020, it’s something that caught my attention and not something I felt I could simply ignore. Just what the heck else do you think determines race? Sure, skin color, but what determines someone’s skin color? DNA! Did these people not take science in school?! Take Barack Obama as an example. He’s half white and half black. How do you think that happens? His mother was white and his father was black. Pretty simple, right?
 
It’s the mixture of their genetic composition that made Obama look the way he does. And skin color is part of our genetic makeup. Thus, it’s part of our DNA. Thus, it’s part of our blood. To argue against this is to ignore science (though they have no problem ignoring science when it comes to gender, so why would I expect them to pay attention to science when it comes to race?)
 
I could talk more about this, but that would have to come in a different article. Again, that was largely a tangent and not really related to the point of this article, but it’s something that I felt necessary to share since it was also in the New York Times article discussing Warren in 2020.
 
The point of this article is that it’s quite astounding the sort of negative effect the test has had on Warren’s political career to the point where she went from a top Democrat star, ready to challenge Trump to having people doubting whether or not she will run or if she even should.
 
It’s also quite astounding the 180 the media did regarding Warren and her ancestry claims. Again, they fully supported her when she released the results, saying they proved her claims and made Trump look like an idiot. Soon after, they saw they couldn’t fool people quite so easily anymore when the facts are right in their faces and even in their own articles, so they flipped on her.
 
And almost two months later, the NYT thinks her chances of her 2020 run have “darkened”. If that is not an indication to the sort of free-fall Warren very well could be facing in the next couple of years as a Democrat star, I don’t know what is.
 
Ephesians 5:11
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Much in the same way that those who try socialism end up suffering because of it, women are now reportedly suffering in Wall Street due to the threatening effects of the #MeToo movement. What do I mean by that?
 
Well, according to Bloomberg, men all across Wall Street are “adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.”
 
“No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.” That was literally the opening paragraph of the Bloomberg article.
 
“In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is ‘an unknown risk’. What if she took something he said the wrong way?”
 
So because of the #MeToo movement, men in the financial industry are trying to protect themselves from unfound sexual harassment lawsuits that could destroy them. Of course, Bloomberg doesn’t mention that, instead choosing to basically attack the men for now becoming more discriminatory.
 
Now, I’m not saying this is a good response to the #MeToo movement. Doing this sort of thing can be detrimental to women in the work-place as well. But you can’t exactly blame these guys for fearing a sexual harassment or assault claim.
 
I know I’ve already talked plenty about Kavanaugh, most recently with outgoing Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill admitting Democrats’ handling of Kavanaugh might have hurt her in her election efforts, but he is a prime example of what the #MeToo movement could POTENTIALLY cause for men.
 
Now, this is something that must be pointed out: the Kavanaugh accusation was strictly political. You may believe the “survivors” in this case, but it’s plainly obvious that the biggest reason he was targeted is because of his political leanings, not because of anything devious he had done.
 
However, what I want to point out is the fierceness of the media in attacking Kavanaugh with these allegations, and more importantly, the substantial LACK of evidence that was brought about that still led to the fierceness of the media.
 
Like I said in the previous article discussing Kavanaugh, the media was essentially calling him an outright serial rapist. For weeks, the accusations were all anyone, including yours truly, was talking about in length. Story after story of Kavanaugh assaulting, harassing or flat out raping girls would come out. On the day of his hearing, he gave a very emotional, but appropriate response to the entire mess… and the media attacked him for that too, saying he was a lunatic.
 
The guy had essentially been a boy scout his entire life. Never really doing anything bad, or at least too bad. Always trying to do the right thing. Always keeping his hands clean. And upon being selected to the highest court in the land, a privilege only a select few will ever receive in their lives, he is attacked and barraged with accusations that went uncorroborated either by any evidence or witnesses.
 
Kavanaugh, thankfully, overcame that and was closely selected to become a Supreme Court judge. But not every man that is similarly attacked will be so lucky.
 
Sure, the media largely won’t go after the Regular Joe anywhere as fiercely as they did with Kavanaugh. Maybe not even at all. But the whole Kavanaugh debacle with the media highlighted the kind of world we are heading towards: Kavanaugh’s character was being destroyed by accusers who did not or could not bring forth any substantial evidence to their claims.
 
If ZERO evidence is all any woman needs to destroy a man’s career (and let’s not forget Blasey Ford heavily benefited because of this with a GoFundMe page that gave her over $600,000), then no man is safe in the work-place.
 
Now, again, the Kavanaugh smear was strictly political. But what reason does a woman have not to lay forth uncorroborated claims against a male colleague if she can benefit from it? Companies will surrender settlements for people not to sue, so in an age when evidence is pretty much unnecessary and “we must believe all women”, why would any woman not lay forth such claims?
 
It doesn’t even have to be all-out rape or even sexual assault. A simple sexual harassment claim will do because such a claim comes down to what is “interpreted” by the woman as harassment. Men are afraid of flirting with women due to how the woman might take that flirting and somehow claim it as harassment. I mean, in France, it’s a finable offense to wolf-whistle (kind of like in old-timey cartoons where a man will whistle at a woman’s attractiveness). That is being equated to harassment.
 
So when it’s so insanely easy to screw a guy over, men will look to protect themselves from this sort of thing by avoiding female interaction in the work-place. It may not be the best response, but it’s not something you can blame them for.
 
The #MeToo movement is basically trying to do away with due process. The phrase “believe all women” essentially symbolizes that desire. What if the woman is lying? “What, and let the guy get away with allegedly raping the girl that is lying? Never!”
 
It doesn’t help matters when women have the mindset of female over male, in the guise of equality. Allow me to explain. Back in November of last year, Teen Vogue columnist Emily Lindin shared the following: “Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”
 
If women like her believe that it’s okay to sacrifice innocent men just to further the Leftist agenda, that will lead men to take actions similar to the ones described by Bloomberg. That mindset is not about equality in the least. It’s not about undoing oppression, it’s about women BECOMING oppressors.
 
It’s for this reason that I find anyone who says “the future is female” to be a disgusting human being. They might think it’s a good thing, but it’s just as sexist as saying “the future is male”. That’s not undoing “oppression” (I argue there is no such oppression, but for the sake of the argument, let’s say there is). It’s changing who gets to be oppressors and who is made to be oppressed.
 
Such people do not strive for equality; they strive for supremacy and domination.
 
Such people are the ones who are more than okay with destroying an innocent man’s career, reputation and life for the sake of the feminist agenda. It doesn’t help women, it hurts them, as we can plainly see.
 
In that same Bloomberg article, Lisa Kaufman, CEO of LaSalle Securities, said that men have to step up and “not let fear be a barrier,” in response to men acting this way as a result of #MeToo.
 
Again, can you really blame these guys for this? They’re just trying to protect themselves from an unnecessary risk. Is it the right response? I don’t think so, because it also causes women to suffer. But you have to understand that women in the #MeToo movement have to also step up and not insist that we “must believe all women”, because sometimes, women lie. Just as men lie, so do women.
 
And if a woman can benefit from destroying a man, what reason apart from her own conscience would she have to not do it? Again, companies are suckers for these sorts of things. They will give out settlements like Tic-Tacs to women who could simply claim harassment in an effort to avoid a lawsuit.
 
This is particularly the case for “woke” companies like Google, who will literally fire an employee for simply recognizing the basic DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.
 
Equality is, as it turns out, a two-way street. Making false claims for profit, or even to advance some sort of agenda, is not being equal. It’s just being an ass. Men should not sexually assault, harass and/or rape women. Men should not segregate themselves from women in the work-place. But women should also not take advantage of other people’s actual assault stories in order to further themselves or some sort of agenda. Women should not use “believe all women” to accuse a guy of something that he didn’t do.
 
Colossians 1:16-17
“For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
 
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.

Ok, class, let’s turn our attention to our book, titled: “No, Duh!”, where we will find Claire McCaskill, the outgoing Democrat Senator from Missouri, actually admitting that the way the Democrat Party handled the Kavanaugh confirmation process and his sexual assault allegations might’ve cost her her re-election.
 
McCaskill recently told NPR that “I don’t think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred. There were mistakes made by my party in terms of how that was handled. I don’t think that communication [from Ford] to the judiciary committee should have been kept private as long as it was. The FBI deals with a lot of confidential information, and that would have absolved [Feinstein] of the very real perception that this was an 11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.”
 
Okay, there are a good amount of things to go through here.
 
First of all, I would argue that her vote against Kavanaugh did hurt her an awful lot. Those who voted against Kavanaugh’s confirmation (that is, all but 1 Democrat, who just-so-happened to win his race in November) essentially voted in favor of allowing someone’s entire career and life be derailed by the simple accusation of sexual assault. No evidence is necessary. No corroborating witnesses need apply. If a woman says a man sexually assaulted her, that guy should be thoroughly punished, evidence be damned.
 
Almost all Democrats voted for that sort of world when they voted against Kavanaugh (and this includes Lisa Murkowski, who is a supposed Republican. No, she didn’t vote against Kavanaugh, but planned to before abstaining). The Democrat Party’s mindset was the utter disregard and destruction of due process for the simple reason that they do not like the guy’s political leanings.
 
Second of all, the Democrat Party did not make “mistakes”. It was an outright assault on a highly-qualified candidate strictly for political reasons, and their murder weapon was a sloppily-constructed sexual assault allegation, a second, even more sloppily-constructed sexual harassment allegation, and a rape allegation that is so outlandish and unbelievable, it would be found in the fiction section of a library, were it to be written into a book. Granted, the same could be said for the other allegations, but that rape allegation was particularly incredible.
 
The Democrat Party did not make a mistake when it came to the Ford allegation, since Feinstein sat on it, waiting until the 11th hour to release it. It was a calculated plan of attack. Of course, they still did not have the proof for the claims, but that was not necessary in their minds. With the way the media was going along with it, flat out calling Kavanaugh a serial rapist, evidence was not something they thought they would need. And they came incredibly and uncomfortably close to succeeding too.
 
Frankly, the only mistake I could see regarding the whole thing was allowing the creepy porn lawyer to release an even more mentally disturbed person to make such outlandish allegations that they practically sunk the previous allegations made.
 
Turns out that not many people will believe a college-aged woman would attend high school parties in which the boys would regularly run rape trains on the girls and that said college-aged woman would ATTEND SUCH A PARTY TEN DIFFERENT TIMES!
 
Not to mention that the entire thing pretty much fell apart when Swetnik flat out said she did not remember Kavanaugh actually participating in the raping of girls.
 
But aside from that, since the main focus was Blasey Ford, whom the Left elevated to the status of a survivor bravely sharing her story (*whispering* after pretty much not telling anyone for about 30 years), one can hardly say that the Democrats made a mistake here. They knew what they were doing and the media was in on it as well. After the test run that was the Iran nuke deal, the Democrat Party figured out they could literally tell the media that JFK was revived using unicorn magic and the suckers would buy it hook, line and sinker.
 
As a result, they knew that any allegation that the Democrat Party ran with, the media would run with it as well and even more strongly.
 
Lastly, and just about the only good thing I could say about this woman and what she’s saying, I can appreciate the fact that she is admitting that this was an “11th-hour attempt to gut a guy.”
 
I don’t imagine very many Democrats, even the ones that have since lost their elections, would be so willing to admit that the Kavanaugh witch hunt was just that. So I will give credit where credit is due.
 
Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Kavanaugh was so sought after with false allegations that were uncorroborated and unproven that his name will forever leave a sour taste in people’s mouths. Despite the fact that there’s been no evidence to prove even one of the allegations made, the Left, Hollywood, and Democrat voters will forever see Kavanaugh as a sexual assaulter and rapist.
 
That’s the sort of damage they’ve caused. Sure, he’s in the Supreme Court for life now, but there are a lot of other cases where a man is accused of something that he didn’t do and is punished for the mere allegation. In fact, Democrats are trying to challenge a bill that would return due process on college campus, allowing for people accused to be innocent until proven guilty as it works everywhere else in the country.
 
This is the path the Left wants to take. Their rampant “feminism” has led to the belief that all women, regardless of credibility or even evidence presented, must be believed at all costs. And the only time that doesn’t happen is when a prominent Leftist is being accused of it (*ahem* Neil DeGrasse Tyson *ahem*). Of course, in the case of DeGrasse Tyson, and even Michael Avenatti’s accusation of domestic violence, the two of them deserve due process and deserve to be seen innocent until proven guilty. That’s just the way it works and the way it should work, regardless of political leanings.
 
But the point here is that those very same people will ignore that if the target is someone to the Right of Marx.
 
And this double-standard goes farther than sexual assault or domestic violence. Paul Manafort is in prison for things a lot of Democrats have also done, but they enjoy their freedom. Now, Manafort SHOULD be in prison since he did break the law, but so should anyone else WHO BREAKS THE SAME EXACT LAWS!
 
Hillary Clinton sold 20% of our Uranium supply as Secretary of State, colluded with foreign agents to steal an American election, and wiped a server full of over 30k emails containing highly confidential information. She’s currently going on a coughing tour and selling tickets for less than the price of popcorn at a movie theater. And even then, the Clintons can barely sell any tickets. If I had any interest in going, I would buy a ticket and wear a MAGA hat just to tick them off.
 
But in any case, there exists a painfully clear double-standard in our injustice system (yes, I will call it that until I see some actual justice being served). Those who are helpful and an asset to the Left and the Leftist agenda are allowed to break more laws than Al Capone, while those who are a challenge to the Left, a liability, or even a good sacrificial lamb will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and simple accusations, regardless of evidence or lack thereof, will be enough for them.
 
As for Claire McCaskill, she would not have come even close to admitting this had she won her election and especially had the Democrats gotten away with destroying the career and life of an innocent man. Only once the dust has settled and there is no more fighting does she come to accept the fact that this was a last-minute and last-ditch attempt at destroying someone they didn’t like.
 
For the record, I am a little bit surprised that she would admit this, considering she has nothing to gain from it, and I do give her credit for actually admitting this, which is more than I ever expected out of any Democrat, but the sentiment that maybe what they were doing wasn’t right shouldn’t have come in this late. Kavanaugh’s already in the Supreme Court and has been for a couple months now.
 
I guess hindsight really is 20/20.
 
James 4:17
“So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
 
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.