Among the many reasons that socialism always fails is the fact that it is wholly unrealistic and requires far too many things to be perfect and work right for it to actually be effective at all. By the same token, gun control doesn’t work for many of the same reasons: it is unrealistic to believe passing gun control laws will make those who don’t care about the laws suddenly care about them or work with them willingly.
 
The United Kingdom and especially London have some of the strictest gun control laws imaginable, and yet, shootings still happen, other crimes like knife crimes happen and some of the worst people you could think of have access to guns innocent civilians have no hope of being able to stand up against.
 
Yesterday, a guy in his late teens was fatally shot in London just minutes after another man was stabbed in his head (non-fatally, somehow) elsewhere in the city. The crimes don’t appear to be related, however.
 
Still, that is far from the only case of a violent crime perpetrated with a knife and the shooting goes to show that gun control laws simply can’t prevent shootings and gun-related killings in general.
 
But that’s not the only reason I am talking about this. If anything, that’s the secondary reason. The primary reason is the fact that just a day before said shooting, Metropolitan Police conducted a raid in an industrial estate near Bretts Farm, Romford Road. This raid found quite the arsenal of weaponry including “three AK47 assault rifles, one sub-machine gun, two shotguns, one revolver, one self-loading pistol, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and 22 grenades.”
 
Officers also found “a large number of stolen vehicles, several kilos of Class A drugs, and a cannabis farm.”
 
Now, I don’t know gun laws in Britain as much as I do in the United States, but if American laws are anything to go by, and knowing that British laws are even more extreme, I can’t imagine some, if any, of these things are legal. AK47 assault rifles (aka automatic rifles) certainly are not legal. Sub-machine guns typically are automatic weapons, so I can’t imagine that’s legal, but one can get a sub-machine-gun-like weapon (like an UZI) if it is semi-auto. Shotguns might be the outlier here. Handguns, however, have been banned since 1997 and grenades are explosives, so there’s no way those are legal.
 
According to Business Insider, people can own shotguns and rifles as long as they have an appropriate license. However, shotguns have the restriction that “they can’t hold more than three shotgun shells – including the one in the chamber if it’s a pump-action or semiautomatic shotgun.”
 
And while you are legally able to buy semiautomatic rifles, their caliber can be no higher than .22, which isn’t much.
 
Still, while you can buy one, you have to give the government a “good reason” to buy one. Business Insider says that “hunting or being a member of a shooting club, for example, might be seen as good reasons.” However, “self-defense won’t be considered a valid reason.”
 
So if you are living in London, for the most part, you won’t have a good reason to buy a rifle. Well, wanting to protect yourself should be seen as a valid reason, but these people are insanely stupid or simply don’t care, so your peasant arse can die for all they care.
 
And again, all handguns are illegal, so there isn’t much chance of defending yourself in the city, unless you want to risk doing something illegal yourself.
 
That is the line criminals, by definition, aren’t afraid to cross. They won’t care what the law says. If the law says they can’t get a gun, they smile because that means law-abiding citizens are further restricted. If a bad guy wants to get a gun badly enough, he will find a way to get one.
 
I’ve used this example before, but I think it’d be good to use it again: how many times has someone used a gun that didn’t belong to them? How many times has a shooter used a gun that belonged to either a friend or family member? How do you regulate that? By punishing the owner of the gun? They had nothing to do with the person’s actions, especially if the shooter stole the owner’s gun.
 
And it’s not like that’s the only way to acquire a gun. There are black markets, where you can buy any gun you want. How else would someone be able to get assault rifles, sub-machine guns, handguns and grenades as the Metropolitan officers found in their recent raid?
 
All types of shady characters from gang members to even terrorists use this sort of system. A gang member told the Evening Standard that “in the last 10 years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence… These people had seen family members mutilated so when they said, ‘I’m gonna smash you up,’ us guys would be shouting, ‘Yo blud, wot you mean?’ and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level of violence for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.”
 
So regardless of what the law says, gang members and foreign terrorists are able to gather weapons no law-abiding citizen is allowed to own.
 
A number of reasons can be given as to why London in particular is circling the drain in terms of security. I would say that the fact police are forced to look into non-violent “hate crimes” as more of a priority than other things and the fact that the central government often cuts police budgets are the most important reasons. The fact that the U.K. is also taking in multitudes of immigrants particularly from places like Syria certainly doesn’t help.
 
Despite what the local or federal government tries to do in the U.K., chaos seems to be a prominent sight. While it’s not quite apocalypse-level of chaos and unruliness, the fact that stabbings and other violent crimes happen so often in London shows how weak the government is to try and maintain order.
 
Ronald Reagan once said that the government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. The U.K. government is adamant about doing the exact opposite, focusing on crimes of feelings rather than crimes of violence.
 
And when they do focus on crimes of violence, they take all the wrong steps to ensure they are not lessened, only helping bad guys continue to do those things. You know what would really bring down the knife crime rates? ALLOWING PEOPLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES! Allow people to own handguns! Allow people to say protecting themselves is the reason they want to do it!
 
Because seriously, that reason should be enough to get a gun. The government is essentially slapping their people in the face by saying protecting yourself is not a “good reason”. “You want to make sure the rampant knife crimes going on are kept to a minimum for yourself and your family? You want to be able to protect yourself from someone who wants to cause you harm? Well, screw you!” is essentially what the U.K. government tells their people.
 
Gun control never works. Look at any place in the world where there is strict gun control and you will see that. New Zealand recently had a shooting even though they have some of the strictest gun control in the world. They are now moving to have even more gun control than before, outright banning rifles and forcing people to turn theirs in. Do you want to know who’s not going to obey those laws? PEOPLE LIKE THE DAMN SHOOTER!
 
No area is ever made safer by the confiscation and restriction of guns for those who obey the law.
 
Matthew 15:19
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.”
 
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 are a number of reasons as to why I had not written about Jussie Smollett at all in the months that the entire scandal broke out, first with the belief that Trump supporters really did beat him up and then when it was made pretty clear the scumbag staged the whole thing, taking advantage of racial tensions in America to advance his own career.
 
Among the reasons are 1) I did not care one wit about it and had every reason to not believe Smollett’s story in the first place, 2) when the hoax was revealed, everyone was saying the same exact things and were shocked about them and 3), perhaps most importantly, I seriously did not care one wit about this story and had better things to write about.
 
However, I feel the need to say a little something here after Chicago State's Attorney dropped all the charges made against Jussie and he continued to play the victim in all of this. The amount of corruption going on in this case and really the country as a whole is visceral. It disgusts me to my core.
 
What do I mean? Well, if you’ve been following the details of this story, you would understand why, but in the case that you previously did not really care about this whole case at all, like me, allow me to explain just why I am certain this is a case of utter corruption.
 
As if faking a hate crime wasn’t enough, the s.o.b. “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, thanks to his and his family’s ties with the OBAMAS, gets a get-out-of-jail-free card. Like Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire says about this: this shows what privilege in America really looks like.
 
And there’s almost no privilege that equals the privilege of knowing and being friends with powerful people, particularly with a former First Family.
 
Last week, a series of texts and emails from a woman named Tina Tchen were revealed, wherein Tina was acting on behalf of Smollett’s family to try and get Chicago SA Kim Foxx to intervene in the investigation of Smollett and have the case turned over to the FBI. Who’s Tina Tchen, you might ask? Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff.
 
Beyond that, Kim Foxx is known for having taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from one major Democrat donor. A donor who goes by the name of George Soros. In her 2016 race, Foxx reportedly received more than $300,000 from George Soros and an extra $75,000 after the race ended. Of course, Foxx is not the only person to be in Soros’ pocket, but that goes to show the level of corruption we’re dealing with.
 
And if that wasn’t bad enough, Foxx dropped the charges without first alerting Chicago P.D. Superintendent Eddie Johnson and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel (who are both livid over it, and for the first time in my life, I agree with something Emmanuel says) and while the police department was preoccupied with a graduation ceremony.
 
The SA did what Michelle Obama’s Chief of Staff asked her to do and intervened in the investigation. The SA dropped all the charges against Jussie Smollett, releasing the following statement:
 
“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is just a disposition and appropriate resolution to the case.”
 
What kind of a half-assed explanation is that? Did they actually review the facts? I’m guessing they did, because they don’t even try and challenge the facts. They make no mention of them. The only reason they give as to why they are dropping the charges is “Smollett was a good boy to the community”. What a load of garbage! How does exploiting racial tensions and reporting a false hate crime doing good community service? Rahm Emmanuel thought that was an EMBARRASSMENT to the city of Chicago! And I agree! These people have me agreeing with Rahm Emmanuel it’s that bad.
 
“Oh, but it’s not just his community service! No, he also paid a bond! That counts for something, right?” Oh, yeah, because paying a $10,000 bond is going to make a dent in the guy’s wallet.
 
Perhaps what makes all of this so disgusting is the fact that, after having his charges dropped, the shameless bastard Jussie Smollett continued to play victim and not apologizing at all for his actions. He even says he will “continue to fight for the justice, equality, and betterment of marginalized people everywhere.”
 
What a load of garbage! He orchestrated a poorly-executed hate crime against himself to advance his career, tried to blame white Trump supporters for it, further dividing the country for his own benefit and was stupid enough to leave a paper trail behind. How exactly does FAKING a hate crime help? How is that fighting for justice? How is that fighting for equality? How does this improve marginalized people’s standing in the world?
 
And if you have to MAKE UP a hate crime, what does that tell you about the frequency of hate crimes in the first place? What does that tell you about how often people are marginalized?
 
I think it’s for that reason that Rahm is so furious over this whole thing. He claims that this makes it so others who go through an actual hate crime will be less likely to be believed. And that might be true, but how often do such hate crimes happen nowadays?
 
The Left pretends we still live in a pre-Civil Rights America and would like for others to think this is the case, but it’s really not. If Jussie had to PAY people to attack him in order to blame racism and homophobia, etc., that tells you that America is not quite as hateful as they think it is.
 
But it’s clear as day just how corrupt the Left makes America. Being friends with the Obamas carries weight. Being in a city where the people in charge are in the pocket of one of the most corrupt and twisted billionaires in the history of the world carries weight.
 
This is the opposite of justice. This is visceral corruption of the justice system. I honestly feel sorry for Superintendent Johnson. His officers gathered evidence to expose the guy and apply justice to him, but a corrupt lawyer stepped in to stop that.
 
Justice is blind. But corrupt people aren’t.
 
Romans 1:21
“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

While I 100% knew that the Russian collusion narrative was not going to die even after Mueller cleared Trump of that accusation in his report, I’ll admit I thought the Left would not be THIS desperate to keep the narrative alive so soon.
 
The New York Times (at least in their online article) had a headline that read: “Washington’s Most Popular Russian (and His Teammates) Honored at White House.”
 
Now, that headline on its own is a bit ambiguous. It’s not an outright lie, but it’s fairly misleading, though there are clues in it that should tell you (at least if you’re a sane person) that Trump was actually meeting with the Stanley Cup champions the Washington Capitals, led by Alex Ovechkin, the team’s star player and Russian native.
 
But there is more to this than just what the headline tells you. In the beginning paragraph, the NYT mentions the recently wrapped up Russian investigation: “A day after President Trump reveled in the apparent fizzling of a two-year effort to prosecute him for possible illicit coordination with Russia during the 2016 campaign, Washington’s most prominent Moscow native arrived at the White House on Monday to celebrate.”
 
Now, tell me, is it at all necessary to mention the Russian investigation in an article about the President meeting with a championship-winning sports team? What does it add to the story’s main point – that Trump met with the Washington Capitals in the White House, and meeting with the team’s star player who just so happens to be from Russia – to make mention of the fact that Trump was under investigation for two years for supposed collusion with Russia?
 
By the way, I also love the subtle hint that they don’t think this is over. Saying “apparent fizzling” tells me how they 100% do not plan on this being settled just because Mueller couldn’t find anything. Poor desperate demons.
 
And it’s not just that beginning paragraph. According to the Daily Wire (the NYT has a subscription wall and I have no intention of giving them any of my money), later down the NYT article, they talk about a “2017 Oval Office meeting between Trump, the Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, and then-Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey I. Kislyak. Naturally, the Times took the opportunity to claim the conversation between these men ‘reinforced the belief that Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey because of the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between Russian operatives and the campaign – a move that would have potentially implicated him in another crime, obstruction of justice.’”
 
Again, in an article talking about the President meeting with the Washington Capitals months after they won the Stanley Cup, the most coveted prize in the NHL, what does it add to the story to mention this random meeting from ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO!?
 
You see, I could take that headline and beginning paragraph as a little joke about how Trump is meeting with a Russian the day after the Mueller investigation wrapped up. I have a sense of humor, so I can see the fun little irony of meeting with a Russian-born man the day after the Russian collusion investigation wrapped up, clearing him of the charges. But the fact that the article also mentions the Oval Office meeting with those two Russian diplomats from 2017 tells me the writer of this article did not mean any of this as a joke.
 
It tells me this is still an effort to maintain the Russian collusion narrative and even try and bring along the obstruction of justice narrative (which is as b.s. as the collusion narrative, given Trump has the legal power to fire the head of the FBI for any given reason or no reason at all). It tells me that none of this is funny and Trump meeting with Ovechkin (and his teammates) is another piece of evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. That somehow, a hockey player who led his team to winning the Stanley Cup and happens to be Russian (though he’s also a fan of Putin, for some reason, but that hardly implicates him as being an operative) plays some small part of the overall conspiracy to steal the election away from Hillary (and by extension, the Democrats, given that they could not give a single damn about her now) and thus shows that Trump is guilty of everything he’s been accused of.
 
It’s sad, to be quite honest. The Mueller report just cleared Trump of the very charges it was supposed to prosecute him on, so the Left is grasping at straws. Like I mentioned in my previous article, the Left has turned on Mueller, with some thinking he might’ve been compromised by the Russians or something.
 
This narrative was the only explanation the Left had for Trump winning in 2016, with the obstruction of justice charge coming a bit later, but also leading nowhere.
 
This is downright derangement. And not just Trump Derangement Syndrome, but outright derangement. They refuse to believe Trump didn’t collude with Russia. These people do not rely on facts or logic at all, but entirely on feelings.
 
They want Trump in jail because he ticks them off to no end. He didn’t commit any crimes, was elected fairly and legally, but he is an affront to them just by existing and must be rid of. That’s why people like Rep. Al Green (D-TX) (seriously, Texas, what are you doing electing this doofus?) repeatedly tried to bring up articles of impeachment throughout Trump’s presidency. He had no grounds for impeachment, only claiming things like obstruction of justice and so forth, but nothing substantial. And yet, he tried multiple times to have it be brought up for a vote on the House floor and was repeatedly rejected. Matter of fact, even after the Mueller investigation wrapped up, he keeps saying that he will continue to seek impeachment of the President.
 
That’s because impeachment is not about justice, but politics. The grounds for it have to be justified, for the most part, but if there is enough support for it, justice doesn’t matter. If enough Democrats and Republicans wanted Trump out, they could do it with the most b.s. reasons imaginable.
 
The Russian collusion narrative should be dead, and some Democrats like James Clyburn are trying to get them to move on (particularly to the narrative that Republicans want to take away people’s healthcare), but I’m certain these people will not move on. They will keep going back to the well that has dried up. They don’t care if nothing comes from it, they are desperate enough and deranged enough to think it will hurt Trump.
 
It won’t. And the more desperate they get, the less appealing they will be to most voters.
 
Of course, I imagine a fair majority of the Democrat base also believed in the collusion story and will likewise not want to let it go because it does not compute that Mueller found no evidence. After all, if the average Democrat voter only receives information from the MSM, time and time again, people like Rep. Adam Schiff told them they themselves had evidence of collusion, so Mueller must also have evidence of collusion. Finding that Mueller did not, actually, have anything goes against the garbage the media was feeding them and these people might come to the conclusion that something was amiss regarding Mueller. That he must’ve somehow been compromised or something else that might explain this new reality.
 
But I don’t think the majority of people are that nutty. Being cleared by Mueller is a massive win for Trump that could very well help him out in the future.
 
But again, I doubt this will do anything to change any on the Left’s minds. Some might be more willing to cut their losses and move on, but most I imagine will go even more insane than they already were. Before, while they still accused Trump of all of these things without any evidence, they at least had the Mueller investigation going on to fall back on, hoping it will find something. Now, they will try to claim things without evidence and without even the support of the Mueller investigation. In fact, the report directly contradicts what they would have to say, so that puts them in an even worse position.
 
But this is just how desperate they are. Again, I could’ve taken that headline and opening paragraph as a little joke, but these people have no sense of humor and did not intend those things to be a joke. They think Trump meeting with any Russian at all is tantamount to him meeting with Putin and drinking vodka in celebration of getting away with something malicious.
 
The desperation is real and it’s just beginning.
 
 Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
 
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 what is perhaps the biggest piece of news in the last year or so, Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrapped up his investigation and released his final report clearing President Donald Trump of any assertions that he colluded with Russia and found no evidence that he obstructed justice at any point, leaving it up to AG William Barr to decide whether or not Trump did (and Barr said he didn’t).
 
Finally, the 2-year-long investigation that began because of a long-since-debunked dossier is over and Mueller found no evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice at any point during the investigation. The man whom many had replaced Christmas declarations last year and whom Chelsea Handler said she was “sexually attracted” to ultimately found nothing that tells people Trump colluded with Russia or sought to obstruct justice (this investigation wasn’t justice, but vendetta) during the investigation, so now, the Left is turning on him.
 
Rep. Adam “full of” Schiff said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday: “It was a mistake to rely on written responses by the president. That’s generally more what the lawyer has to say than what the individual has to say.”
 
Kind of like when Michael Cohen met with you for 10 hours before his latest Congressional hearing, then?
 
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said: “Maybe [Mueller] missed the boat here. Why was there never an interrogation of this president? We were told for weeks by experts, ‘You cannot deal with an obstruction-of-justice charge or investigation without getting the motive’… How could they let Trump off the hook?”
 
You can almost feel his utter sadness from that quote alone. First, interesting that he said “interrogation” rather than interview. You interview people of interest, but interrogate criminals, which is what Matthews sees Trump as.
 
Second, that part about “letting Trump off the hook” is glorious to me and tells me the sort of mindset he has. To Matthews, Trump does not get the benefit of presumption of innocence. He’s guilty as sin, in their minds, and Mueller just let him off the hook. The problem with this logic is mainly that THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR EVERYONE and for good reason. Prosecutors don’t exonerate. They prosecute. When there is not enough evidence to find someone guilty of something, they cannot prosecute that person.
 
But because this is Trump we’re talking about, the fact that there wasn’t enough prosecutorial evidence is entirely irrelevant. They think they KNOW he’s guilty just by looking at him, regardless of what reality may be. That’s how much hatred they harbor in their hearts. You’re guilty simply for existing and existing as the opposing force to them.
 
Let’s not forget the reason this started is because Trump BEAT Hillary in 2016 and the Left went bonkers over it, thinking it couldn’t possibly happen and something had to be amiss. That Trump has to have cheated to get where he was. Or that Trump has to have stumbled his way towards colluding with Russia (somehow).
 
The reason they think he’s guilty of collusion is because they are so darn narcissistic that they can’t believe the American people did not choose their favored candidate and turned away from their platform and party.
 
Remember when Bill Maher said that people in red states were jealous of people in blue states? Well, it’s that narcissism that has them thinking “how could these inferior ignoramuses possibly think we are not better and smarter than them? How could they not see the sheer brilliance of the smartest woman in the world? How could they think that orangutan is the better choice? No, they are jealous of us and want to be us, so they must want what we have and what we are. They must’ve wanted Hillary, but Trump somehow stole the election from her! Yes, that is the only logical explanation available!”
 
These people outright have a superiority complex and think they know what’s best for everyone. It is this belief that they are superior that has them believing they can’t possibly be wrong about Trump and the election.
 
And this is backed up by what BILL MAHER said following the findings of the Mueller report: “Did the Democrats put too much trust in the Mueller report? Because I don’t need the Mueller report to know [Trump’s] a traitor. I have a TV.”
 
Again, quite a narcissistic thought that he can SEE Trump’s collusion and treason through his TV screen alone. What exactly has he seen of Trump? The great SOTU address in February? The passion he put towards his speech on the necessity of a southern border wall? The constant love he shows towards America regardless of his audience, whether its his own supporters or even foreign diplomats?
 
What’s treasonous about that? Or is he referring to the JOKE he made about Russia getting Hillary’s emails (which they easily could have gotten given how negligent Hillary was about them)?
 
The Left’s reaction is not surprising at all, to be honest. The Russian collusion narrative has been their driving point for the last two years and are not about to have Mueller, whom they considered their savior (seriously), tell them they were wrong. Because if they take Mueller’s report for what it says, they will have to come to grips with the fact that Trump beat Hillary fairly and was legitimately elected as President.
 
Interestingly enough, I think some did come to grips with that fact. Prior to Mueller finding no collusion, the Left was making the effort of eliminating the electoral college. Why would they if Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election? If Trump colluded with Russia, then it’s not necessarily the electoral college’s fault, but the fault of the perpetrators, right?
 
I think deep down, in their subconscious, they knew perfectly well there was no collusion. Despite the fake news media constantly talking about Trump colluding with Russia or people talking about “having mountains of evidence” of collusion, I think they knew they were talking crap.
 
And it’s not just the latest effort to destroy the electoral college (and therefore destroying the republican system of election) that tells me they didn’t fully buy into the Russian collusion story.
 
The fact that Hillary kept blaming everything from Russia to Obama to Bernie to the voters and women’s husbands tells me she did not believe in the narrative. The fact that they tried to go for “obstruction of justice” after Comey was fired tells me they did not have much faith in the narrative. If there was easily-discovered evidence of collusion, any claim of obstruction of justice would be a secondary thought that came at some point in the impeachment hearings. But none of that happened.
 
They needed some sort of explanation as to why they did not get their way. And when that explanation is essentially dead, like children seeing their toy get broken by someone, they cry and blame the person that broke their toy.
 
Chelsea Handler even went as far as to say her sexual attraction towards Mueller (which will never not be creepy to me) is “in peril”. And others simply tried to say Mueller was either wrong in his findings (yeah, the guy who is, in their minds, a brilliant investigator) or missed something or is downright in cahoots with Trump or was somehow compromised by Russians (supposedly the man with the most integrity in Washington).
 
Their little idol, whom I imagine some legit prayed to when they were done praying to RBG, their little god did not deliver the goods. He did not tell them what they wanted to hear because TRUMP DID NOT COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA!
 
So now, they are turning on him. Truly, I do not feel any pity for Mueller. With the way he treated General Flynn, Mueller deserves far worse than the Left’s (fairly mild) ire. Mueller is a dirty cop with absolutely no integrity. His findings do not absolve him of the reprehensible fact he overstretched his power as an investigator and had people punished simply for being associated with Trump.
 
Manafort definitely deserved a sentence, but considering he spent so much time in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT before he was even given a trial and considering people wanted him thrown in jail for life for doing something that TONS OF DEMOCRATS DO SO OFTEN INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY HILLARY CLINTON makes me seriously dislike Mueller.
 
As far as General Flynn goes, it’s a travesty, a shame and an utter injustice what was done to that patriot. Being tricked into having an FBI interview that he did not know was under oath (he thought it was a simple conversation and his words would not be on the record for a future trial), Comey saying himself that, while Flynn does contradict himself in two separate interviews that are months apart, he thinks Flynn simply was misremembering things and not outright lying, and being put into financial ruin just because he had a conversation with a Russian diplomat AFTER BEING PUT INTO A LEGITIMATE POSITION TO DO SO BY THE PRESIDENT-ELECT is a horrible injustice perpetrated by the Deep State.
 
I just hope Trump pardons Flynn soon.
 
I thank God that Mueller did not try and fabricate evidence of collusion. That likely would’ve been tested in a trial, but I have little doubts that upon Mueller saying there was collusion, Democrats and RINOs would move towards impeaching the President (again, they would need two-thirds of the Senate and the ability to override a VP veto to accomplish that, but they would’ve tried).
 
It’s atrocious what the Left in this country has been trying to do to the duly-elected President of the United States. I can only pray to God that they will be soundly defeated not just in the next election, but entirely. This is the corruption of the justice system in America. Supposedly, crimes are investigated to find the perpetrator. In this case, a supposed perpetrator was accused of something and was investigated to see if they committed any crimes. That’s banana republic type of stuff.
 
Again, I have to thank God that the Mueller report did not try and make anything up. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the Russian collusion narrative. The reason people were hyping down the Mueller report is because they likely believed it was not going to find anything so they can move on to another investigation that will try to destroy Trump (which will also fail).
 
Truth doesn’t matter to these people. Power does. And as it is, Trump is an obstacle to them getting the power they desire.
 
It’s evil and there’s no different way to describe it.
 
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Recently, I’ve been one to opine that nothing Trump does today will singlehandedly win or lose him the 2020 election. And while that holds true for the most part, what he does with regards to the economy is, indeed, something that could win or lose him in 2020, at least that’s what economists predict.
 
In a story on Politico, written by people who 100% do not want Trump to win again and try and tell their audience “it’s okay, because even though he’s likely to win in 2020, a number of mess ups and his unpopularity (which are really only featured in MSM polls) could derail his chances,” a number of economic experts, some of whom do not like Trump themselves and others who predicted his victory in 2016 all agreed that the strong economy will likely lead Trump to a huge victory in 2020.
 
Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of TrendMacrolytics, a source that predicted Trump’s 2016 victory, said: “The economy is just so damn strong right now and by all historic precedent the incumbent should run away with it.” He also mentioned that the economy “would have to slow a lot to still be not pretty good.”
 
According to Politico: “Luskin’s current model – which looks at GDP growth, gas prices, inflation, disposable income, tax burden and payrolls – has Trump winning by a blowout margin of 294 electoral votes.”
 
Again, that’s a MARGIN. If Trump is going to win by a margin of 294, then that means he’ll receive 416 total electoral votes (538 total votes in the electoral college). The way this was calculated is taking T (for Trump) to be = D (Democrat) plus the estimated 294. D = 538 (total possible votes) – T. So calculating T = D + 294, you replace D with 538 – T so the formula reads T = 538 - T + 294. Moving the two variables to the same side gives us T + T = 538 + 294. So 2T (or T + T) = 832. Dividing both sides by 2 gives us T = 416. 538 – 416 gives us 122, which is what the Democrat will get. 416 -122 = 294, the margin Trump is predicted to win by.
 
Sorry for the (sort of) short math lesson, but I felt it was important to note just how exactly we arrived at that number. While the Politico article doesn’t specifically mention how many votes Trump is predicted to get, I felt it was necessary to try and calculate this to get a bit more of a clear picture around this.
 
Yale economist Ray Fair, who also predicted Trump’s 2016 victory, said something similar: “Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy – and that’s more or less consensus for between now and the election – that has a Trump victory and by a not-trivial margin.” Fair said that, if the economy remains to be this strong (and while economists predict it will slow down significantly, I don’t see much reason for it to do so), Trump will likely win 54% of the vote.
 
Another economist, Mark Zandi, used 12 different economic models to predict the 2020 election. Trump won in every single one of them, with him winning relatively closely in only “three or four” of them, according to Zandi.
 
Something else that might help Trump is the fact that the Fed announced last week that they would hold off on raising interest rates, something they promised they would do last year, which helps in keeping the economy growing at a good rate. Trump himself says that had they not done so at least as often in the past, we’d likely have around a 4% GDP per year right now, but even with those continual rate hikes, the economy still grew by 3.1% for last year, which Trump celebrated as being the best number in 14 years (and yet another reason I doubt the economy will come to the grinding halt so many “experts” predict).
 
Now, like I said, the writers of this Politico article definitely do not want Trump to succeed. They cite everything from what other economists are saying about the future of the economy (again, not much reason for it to stall like they predict) to citing MSM polls that say Trump’s approval numbers are not great, around the low 40%.
 
But regardless of what kind of message they may want to portray, economic models tell the story that Trump is on track to destroying any opposition he meets based on the state of the economy alone.
 
Of course, these are estimates that are most likely not going to be 100% accurate in everything they show, but the trend seems to be that Trump’s strong economy (which is so strong the Left tries to connect it with Obama but no one’s buying what they’re selling) will likely be enough to ensure him victory, barring any major scandal (which the Left will try to promulgate, but the Russian collusion narrative is dying and they’re doing their best to revive it now that Mueller found no collusion) or the economy absolutely tanking (again, no real reason it should).
 
These people could NOT have been happy to report these models. Kind of surprised they did in the first place. Not that it’s all that likely that other MSM sources will report on it, even a little. Any good news for Trump has to be buried as much as possible.
 
1 Corinthians 15:57
“But thanks be to God, who gives us victory through our 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.

Ever since the hoax that mankind has been destroying the earth with all our capitalism and our good livelihoods began, the Left has been trying to back up the farce with some evidence to prove their claims. And while they often TRY to cite evidence, all the evidence they show either is a prediction of what will happen in the next ten to fifty to one hundred years (with data made by men, of course) or the evidence points to actual weather patterns of hot and cold records, but do not tell the whole story surrounding them.

The latter is what AP reporter Seth Borenstein tried recently.
 
He wrote: “The AP looked at 424 weather stations throughout the Lower 48 states that had consistent temperature records since 1920 and counted how many times daily hot temperature records were tied or broken and how many daily cold records were set. In a stable climate, the numbers should be roughly equal. Since 1999, the ratio has been two warm records set or broken for every cold one. In 16 of the last 20 years, there have been more daily high-temperature records than low.”
 
Borenstein even cited some climate scientists: “The AP shared the data analysis with several climate and data scientists, who all said the conclusion was correct, consistent with scientific peer-reviewed literature and showed a clear sign of human-caused climate change. They pointed out that trends over decades are more robust than over single years.”
 
Finally, he concluded by saying: “The analysis stopped with data through 2018. However, the first two months of 2019 are showing twice as many cold records than hot ones.”
 
Gee, I wonder why, in the middle of winter, there appear to be more cold temperatures than hot ones.
 
Jokes aside, the climate scientists that Seth spoke with do not speak for ALL climate scientists.
 
Climatologist John Christy told The Daily Signal: “The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons.”
 
He continued: “The AP… is spinning the story by only noting that record lows are fewer than highs now – but the real story is that in the U.S., both extremes are falling. This is consistent with the decline in number of days greater than 100 [degrees] Farenheit… The differential decline in record temps is inconsistent with [greenhouse gas] theory, which predicts an increase in record highs and higher TMax in general.”
 
According to the Daily Signal: “Most climate change activists cite the greenhouse gas theory – that man-made gases are causing changes to the Earth’s temperature. Christy noted that this theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S. – the frequency of those temps is declining.”
 
Christy notes that the reason for this is likely “urbanization and natural variability.”
 
Christy says: “I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.”
 
In other words, the greenhouse gas theory is wrong, plain and simple. It predicts that there will be more and more record-breaking temperatures, but the reality of the situation is that there has been a decent decline in the last 100 years.
 
Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. also weighed in on the AP’s findings: “Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes… changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2.”
 
In English, he’s saying that there are a lot of variables included in the calculating of the changing climate to simply attribute an overall change to “HUMANS ARE KILLING THE PLANET” paranoia.
 
Now, this is far from the first time this Seth Borenstein fellow has tried to pass off bogus or context-less data as proof of man-made climate change. However, this goes to show just how little the Left actually has in their efforts to prove something that is not there.
 
Unfortunately, despite how honest-to-God ridiculous this climate change hysteria is, around 20% of Americans blame global warming for this past cold winter, according to Gallup. I’m not joking.
 
43% of Americans surveyed “said temperatures where they live were colder than normal, with 19 percent blaming global warming for colder weather,” reported the Daily Caller.
 
I don’t know how often I have to point out the obvious ridiculousness of blaming global WARMING for colder temperatures.
 
But yet, the Left’s push to make everyone dependable morons is working well enough for them. I mean, they already have scared children half to death with talks about them not having a future all in an effort to steal away power and freedom from the American people.
 
I often say that it takes far more faith to believe in climate change than it does God. And since I talked about God and science yesterday, it makes sense to bring this up here: we see evidence of God’s existence EVERYWHERE. However, you can’t even come anywhere close to saying the same of climate change. All the evidence the Left protrudes, as I said earlier, is either a prediction of future temperatures (man-made data, in other words) and the noting of the fact that there are, indeed, record-highs and lows in temperatures, but ignoring completely the fact that such occurrences have been declining in the last century.
 
The matter of fact is this: as God is the one who created everything, including planet Earth, He is the one that is in control of what happens to it. If He decides that it will warm up heavily, it will warm up heavily. If He decides it will severely cool down, it will severely cool down.
 
For the fact that God is sovereign enough to verbally ordain light to exist and the entire universe to be created, I find it odd that so many think He is somehow unable to control the climate and that humanity has wrestled such control away from Him.
 
Genesis 1:1-3
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face if the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
 
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 are a lot of people in this day and age that seem to think that God, or at least religion, and science are completely incompatible with one another. That one strictly requires faith, but not backed up with facts and evidence, and the other strictly requires facts and evidence, but not supported by any faith.
 
That is 100% erroneous and unrealistic. And I will explain just what I mean in a moment.
 
First, let me introduce you to Marcelo Gleiser, an Astro-physicist who has won the Templeton Prize, a prize given to those who have “made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” The prize also gives out $1.5 million, which is more than the Nobel prize gives.
 
Gleiser recently told Agence France Presse that “Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”
 
He also told Yahoo News: “I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited,” sort of taking a Socratic approach to knowledge and understanding that we truly know nothing.
 
Gleiser also points out that “everybody wants to know how the world came to be… Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point. This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it’s called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck.”
 
He also says that those who believe the universe and everything that exists was literally created in six days “position science as the enemy… because they have a very antiquated way of thinking about science and religion in which all scientists try to kill God. Science does not kill God.”
 
And I have some things to say about this. First, a good number of scientists are atheists and devote their careers to finding out more about the universe, yes, but with the particular point of trying to disprove God or suggesting that there is an answer as to how things came to be that do not include God.
 
People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind as such scientists (and I would include Bill Nye the Science Guy, but he only has a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical science, soooo…). But both of these guys often try and insist that God is 100% not real, cannot possibly be real, and that science already has proven that He is not real, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
So we certainly have good reason for not being keen towards scientists who try to prove God does not exist using evidence that does not allude to that in the slightest. If anything, the more we find out about our universe and the more complex we see it to be, the more it goes to show that it couldn’t have come from a massive cosmic accident and that it had to have been specifically designed this way, as it works in perfect synchronization with everything else.
 
The more we find out about DNA, while scientists try and prove evolution using it, we see more and more evidence of the complexity of the creation and the intricate design by an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being, who is the only being who could possibly have created such a thing.
 
But it is precisely because of this that I also have to agree with Gleiser when he says that science does not kill God. If anything, it further goes to show that God does, indeed, exist.
 
But now, allow me to return to something I said earlier and the explanation I promised for it. In the beginning, I said that people seem to think God and science are incompatible with one another; that one strictly and exclusively requires faith but with no evidence and the other strictly and exclusively requires evidence but no faith. Like I said, that is erroneous.
 
From what I just mentioned about DNA and other things, it does not require blind faith to believe in God. We see, every day, His creation at work. Everything we see, touch, smell, hear, taste, etc. is proof of God’s creation. The further we investigate the things we see, and even do not see with the naked eye; the things we can touch and cannot touch; the things we smell and cannot smell; the things we hear and cannot hear; and the things we taste and cannot taste, the more we can become convinced that the theory of everything coming from nothing by pure chance (which is nothing but a mathematical calculation of probability) is ludicrous.
 
Seeing just how everything works, discovering what composes every little thing in the universe does more to PROVE God’s existence than disprove Him.
 
What’s more believable and requires less faith? Believing that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created everything or that everything we know of this universe came from nothing and it was all a massive coincidence that it all works as it does and there are no complications with it that would disrupt the entire universal ecosystem?
 
Personally, I think it requires more blind faith to discover more and more about the universe and think that God is definitely not real.
 
But that’s just one part of the equation. There’s also the notion that “the other”, or science, requires nothing but evidence and no faith. Again, that’s completely wrong.
 
The scientific method REQUIRES a hypothesis. What’s a hypothesis if not some sort of belief or faith that something will be the way one thinks it will be? Science REQUIRES faith to work to its fullest extent, otherwise one would find it much more difficult to use the scientific method.
 
Not to mention that science is not always correct about its evidence. Take the brain, for example. Neurobiologists are constantly finding new things about the brain that they thought were in other places in the brain. The information they previously had about the brain, including the evidence, was not 100% correct.
 
So how can one be 100% sure that God does not exist when one can’t be 100% sure of the brain’s functions in how it works? How can one dismiss the idea of a higher being existing when we know so exponentially little about the universe we live in? We haven’t even fully explored the Earth yet, at least when it comes to the oceans!
 
So Gleiser is right in saying that science doesn’t kill God. Naturally, as nothing can kill God. The problem arises when people use science to further their own agendas that do nothing to advance humanity. The problem with the theory of evolution (and really, there are a LOT of problems with that theory) is that it only goes back so far – to the single living organism that evolves into everything else in the span of millions and millions of years, but it does nothing to explain how that single living organism got there in the first place. If something evolves, it had to have come from something that was already there. And if something living evolves from something else that is living, that previous living thing had to have already been there.
 
Never mind that the theory does nothing to explain just HOW one species can evolve into an entirely different one (I agree that things can adapt and evolve to better suit their environments, but believing a human can come from a monkey, a monkey can come from a reptile and a reptile can come from a fish, which can come from whatever else honestly takes more faith than believing in God).
 
So even the theory of evolution HAS TO INCLUDE GOD FOR IT TO BE FULLY EXPLAINED AND MAKE SENSE!
 
But in any case, the relationship between science and God isn’t antagonistic. One does not hate the other nor does one try to destroy the other. God CREATED everything, and that includes science. God gave humanity the ability to use logic and reason, and thus, the ability to study the things around it.
 
It is only in man’s sinful nature that we find people who pervert science to further a selfish cause. Those who adamantly insist that God is not real and can’t possibly be do a disservice to science, not to mention to God.
 
As I said, the more we find out about our universe, the more we discover its complexity and the improbability of it all being the result of a simple mathematic calculation of probability that has no actual power to dictate anything.
 
Chance does not decide the outcome of a coin flip, it only calculates the probability of an outcome. So chance can’t possibly decide the outcome of the entire universe’s history, only calculate the probability of it all happening. It has no actual power to DO anything. It's not a thing. Those who believe in chance are giving it a power it does not have - they're giving chance the power of "being".
 
God, on the other hand, has ALL the power to do everything. The dismissal of His existence as being antiquated does nothing to progress science itself or humanity. It only serves to further pervert both.
 
John 1:3
“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I always love sharing good and happy news, particularly the kind that really bring a smile to my face, and this article has such news.
 
In a recent Siena College poll asking New Yorkers a number of questions, such as whether they think New York is on the right track or headed in the wrong direction (43 and 46% respectively, interestingly enough), the poll asked how New Yorkers viewed a number of people ranging from Chuck Schumer (51% approval), to Kirsten Gillibrand (43% approval) to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bill de Blasio and President Donald Trump.
 
And this is where we find the best part of the entire thing. President Trump has a 36% approval rating in the state of New York. Now, that’s not exactly ground-breaking, although higher than I honestly expected, but not all that high either. It’s a reasonable amount, all things considered.
 
However, current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is two points BEHIND Trump at 34% and freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was touted as being the future of the Democrat Party, is at an embarrassing 31% approval, with 44% disapproving.
 
This is downright HILARIOUS to see. But wait, there’s more. A plurality of New Yorkers (38%) view her as the villain responsible for 25,000 New Yorkers not getting new jobs after the Amazon deal fell through.
 
Now, this is not the first poll to signal AOC’s unpopularity. Last week, Gallup found Ocasio-Cortez’s popularity taking a tumble, even finding that the more people get to know her, the less she is liked.
 
At least that’s something that she has in common with Hillary.
 
But due to these numbers, AOC went on a tirade online, blaming everything from Fox News to racism and sexism and bigotry for her poor numbers.
 
“[P]eople know more [about me] bc Fox News has turned into ‘AOC TMZ’ (no offense to TMZ), so awareness is growing w/GOPers,” the unpopular lunatic tweeted on Friday.
 
To which I would say the following: GOPers already know about you, you dimwit. We abhor the things you stand for and know for a FACT that they don’t work and would bring about the destruction of the United States. It’s not like she has been a silent, out-of-nowhere Congresswoman or even a candidate. Her defeat of Crowley in the primaries was a big surprise and her notoriety, not to mention popularity, rose since then. She has been EXTREMELY loud about her insane rhetoric since even before she won her race, so it’s not like Republicans were not aware of her.
 
Not that this amount of logic exists within her mind. No, she instead chose to pull the “racist” and “sexist” cards:
 
“When ‘centrists’ care more about the GOP base than the Dem base, bigotry gets legitimized. This is *the* playbook. GOP does it w/ virtually every Dem figure who isn’t a white male: otherize, demonize + splinter. It’s vital that we adapt & dismantle this approach, not cow to it.”
 
Yeah, I don’t even know where to start with that considering how this is so incoherent you’d think a 2nd grader wrote this.
 
But let’s give it a shot. Perhaps it’s important to note this is a reply to a tweet that read: “It’s interesting to see centrists suddenly downplay or ignore the effects of racism, sexism and Fox News targeting when discussing AOC’s overall approval ratings.”
 
Yeah, that’s too great a leap in logic for me to follow. How is it that she was fairly popular in the past (not by that much, but she wasn’t in this much of a hole) but all of a sudden, because Fox News is reporting on her unpopularity, she’s unpopular and it’s because she’s a female minority? What exactly changed here?
 
Not to mention neither the original tweet nor the AOC lunatic and victim reply do anything to answer just why she’s LESS POPULAR THAN TRUMP IN HER OWN STATE!
 
Did the people that elected her (and she received less votes than someone typically does for winning nearly 80% of them at barely over 100,000) all of a sudden become racists and sexists? Is that what we ought to believe here? Because AOC is saying she’s only unpopular now because Fox News is talking about her more (don’t know how that would negatively affect her like this, but sure, let’s go with that excuse) and because people are racist and sexist. So does that make her constituents racists and sexists?
 
I would argue her killing 25,000 jobs for New Yorkers and costing the state billions of dollars in tax revenue are at least some of the reasons people are unhappy with her. Or maybe the fact that she essentially defended Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism by making HER the victim of Islamophobia, which is adamantly ridiculous.
 
Either way, I don’t imagine her little tirade will do much in the way of regaining some of her popularity. It certainly doesn’t help to try and blame Fox News. It wasn’t a Fox News poll that initially showed these results. It was Gallup, which has Trump’s approval rating at only 39%, which is ludicrous.
 
But to the Left, they would be happy to see such numbers for Trump, but all of a sudden, when it comes to AOC, the data is flawed or bigoted?
 
And it’s not like you can even make the same argument for me. Yes, I take Gallup’s approval rating of AOC more legitimate than of Trump’s but that’s because it’s backed by even a New York poll that shows similar numbers.
 
That’s not to say that Gallup is 100% trustworthy, but it does appear to come to agreement with EVEN ANOTHER LEFTIST POLL, which actually tried to casually bury those numbers. If you look at the datasheet of the poll, which has 36 questions total, the question about Trump’s approval rating, de Blasio’s approval rating and AOC’s approval rating are a bit further down in the poll.
 
And by the way, the poll says that the sample had 47% Democrat registered voters and 21% Republican, so even with that sort of disparity between parties, Trump is STILL MORE POPULAR THAN DE BLASIO AND AOC!
 
Granted, part of that may be the fact that you’re more likely to find Democrats than Republicans in that state, but that doesn’t take away the fact that Trump is still more popular.
 
If you divide things down party lines, it shows that Trump’s favorability with Democrats sits at 15%, but with Republicans it sits at 79%. De Blasio’s favorability with Dems sits at 48%, but only 14% with Reps and AOC’s favorability with Dems sits at 47% with only 6% of Reps favoring her.
 
But even with much of the Democrat Party favoring AOC and de Blasio, both still fall short of Trump by a few points. And again, this is with a 47% Democrat sample compared with only 21% of Republicans. Which means that Independents also disapprove of both.
 
The sample had 26% Independents, with 40% favoring Trump, 29% favoring de Blasio and 22% favoring AOC.
 
Overall, it is fantastic to see Republican President Donald Trump polling better (if slightly) than Bill de Blasio and even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is essentially the face of the Democrat Party (sorry, Nancy).
 
This is the sort of thing that puts a smile on my face.
 
Proverbs 16:7
“When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is rare for a sitting president to not be popular with their own party. One would have to be doing an embarrassingly poor job of leading the country for a president’s party to not like him or her. So it comes as no surprise at all that President Donald Trump is polling so well with Republicans.
 
In a recent Morning Consult poll that surveyed an impressive 53,408 registered voters who said they may vote in Republican primaries or caucuses in their state, 85% of them approved of the job Trump is doing as President, with that number having ticked up two percentage points in the last month.
 
According to the Washington Times: “Another 76 percent of the voters support Mr. Trump’s nomination, and that too has risen two percentage points in the past month.”
 
However, I would not be talking about this unless there was a good reason. It’s painfully obvious that a president’s party will almost certainly approve of the job he or she is doing. Even if their overall approval numbers aren’t great (which is not the case for Trump anyway), the president’s party will always likely support them.
 
This much is obvious, so just why am I talking about this? Because of something specific that the poll found.
 
According to the Washington Times: “The painstaking poll also gauges support for Mr. Trump rather than another GOP candidate – this among 27 different demographics. That support ranges from a low of 62 percent among moderate Republicans to a high of 91 percent among those who are ‘very conservative.’”
 
And THAT is what I want to focus on. Yes, it’s not something that should be unexpected, but it does tell us something very, VERY important about Trump and the way his base sees him: he’s pretty conservative.
 
Again, that’s not exactly breaking news, but it should be a sign for anyone who is still a NeverTrumper and considers themselves to be a conservative that the vast majority of those who consider themselves “very conservative” support Trump almost unanimously.
 
And this makes a whole lot of sense. For the most part, the only things NeverTrump Republicans can attack him for are personality traits and similar things. They will attack him as being a racist, as being a brute, as being an idiot, as being unsophisticated and unqualified for the job, as spending too much time on Twitter trolling or attacking people, etc.
 
In the meantime, they ignore the record-low unemployment rates, the great job creation numbers, the booming economy, the lower taxes, people’s bigger paychecks (unless they live in leftist states, for the most part), the deregulation that’s been in place since day one, the generational conservative judges at different levels of the courts, the pro-life policies, the near total destruction of ISIS, the progress made with North Korea towards denuclearization (which he’s taking the Reagan approach of not taking bad deals just to make a deal), and the progress being made towards building a wall and securing our border (which they continue to try and fight against).
 
Trump has been doing a tremendous job as President of the United States. And we easily could add far more to the list of his accomplishments (even still, all of that was off the top of my head) if the Republican Party elites weren’t trying to sabotage him. Had Paul Ryan not been House Speaker or if he had not been a RINO, Obamacare would be a thing of the past, we’d be way farther in the efforts to build the wall, and the House would likely not be Democrat right now.
 
Trump’s been vastly successful as President despite the 92% negative media coverage, despite the Democrat Party constantly making up bullcrap about him, namely the Russian collusion witch hunt, and despite the Republican establishment being so adamantly against Trump they are basically showing themselves to really be Democrats.
 
If the Republican establishment weren’t such scum, there’s no doubt Trump’s approval rating would be considerably higher still.
 
And yet, despite everything going against him, Trump is still massively popular with the Republican base, particularly with conservatives.
 
85% of those who are “extremely interested in politics” also support Trump, while 81% of those over 65 and 81% of rural Republicans also support him. Unfortunately, there is less support from him coming from Millennials, though it’s still not bad at 62%, while those not really interested in politics support him 64%.
 
78% of Republican men and 75% of Republican women also support the President and want him re-elected. Trump is also most popular in Alabama, Wyoming and West Virginia, while least popular in Vermont, California and Massachusetts.
 
In a different poll, a Des Moines Register poll of 400 Iowa Republican voters, we also see that 82% view Trump favorably.
 
Overall, Trump is, unsurprisingly, polling really well with Republicans, particularly with what constitutes the vast majority of the Republican base: conservatives.
 
And this sort of thing really should also be a warning sign for Republican Congressmen and women to not vote against the MAGA agenda.
 
Of the 12 Republican Senators that voted against Trump’s National Emergency declaration, I really don’t like 11 of them. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is not a bad guy at all in my eyes, but I do think he made a pretty bad mistake here.
 
Supposedly, the reasoning behind voting against Trump’s national emergency is due to some precedent it could set for future Democrat Presidents. That’s entirely bogus, considering Obama was running the country like a freaking king while the Republican Party largely sat around picking their noses. They sure as heck didn’t care about what precedent Obama and the Democrats were setting, ruling the country like a kingdom, but now, when the national emergency declaration is used for a GOOD THING, it’s bad precedent?
 
What a load of crap. And I imagine many fellow conservatives feel the same way. The executive power of the national emergency is there and has been there since 1976. But NOW, when it’s being used in its arguably best and purest form for the best reason imaginable, that of deterring an INVASION, all of a sudden it’s bad precedent.
 
I agree that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 might grant too much power to the executive. The Founding Fathers did not want laws to be passed every single day; they wanted it to be very difficult to pass laws and I agree. But THIS is not the hill to die on to make that argument. THIS is the best possible reason for having this power.
 
Protecting the country is a President’s VERY JOB. And that is exactly what this national emergency declaration seeks to do.
 
While I did not intend to go on so much of a tangent regarding the national emergency declaration, it does still fit into my overall argument: those who call themselves “very conservative” aka the vast majority of the Republican base tremendously supports the President. It makes no sense for any Republican to be against THIS particular national emergency declaration as this is not abuse of power, but optimal and proper use of it.
 
If Republicans were so concerned about precedent, they should’ve voted to build a wall when THEY HAD THE CHANCE! Of course, they didn’t want a wall, which is why we’re here today, but still. Rand Paul wants a wall and wants to secure the border, just not this way. Well, unfortunately, there are no other options left.
 
We conservatives support Trump. Those who do not will find themselves on the wrong side of political history here.
 
Exodus 18:21
“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, a gunman (whose name I refuse to share) opened fire in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, leaving nearly 50 dead and over 40 injured in what is likely New Zealand’s deadliest shooting.
 
And while one can easily look at this shooting with the same lenses as other shootings, wherein a debate about gun control is sparked, one document from the shooter himself reveals the very plan and intentions he had upon committing this egregious act.
 
The shooter’s 74-page manifesto is… confusing, to say the least (probably because he might have meant it to be a massive troll to exploit the media’s worst habits, but it’s worth taking a look at). He calls himself a fascist and a socialist, says he’s for “environmentalism”, “worker’s rights” and “responsible markets” but also lambasts and attacks communists, Marxists, and Antifa as “anti-white scum”. And according to Breitbart News, “elsewhere, the shooter writes that ‘under some definitions’, he is both on the right and the left.”
 
The shooter also writes that “conservatism is dead, thank god” and calls it “corporatism in disguise”. He says that conservatives “don’t even believe in the race, they don’t have the gall to say race exists” and “don’t even care if it does”. “The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities.”
 
The shooter also seemingly trolls people in his manifesto, further telling me he meant for this manifesto to be shown to people, as he seemingly blames video games for his actions, saying “Spyro the Dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism” and “Fortnite trained me to be a killer.”
 
The shooter also trolls the readers by saying that conservative pundit Candace Owens, who is neither a white nationalist (she’s black) nor a supporter of violence, is the “person that has influenced me above all.” In a video he posted online (by the way, he used Facebook’s livestreaming service to shoot footage of a little bit of his shooting), he tells viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie”, the YouTube channel of a man named Felix Kjellberg who has the most subscribed-to account in YouTube, with nearly 90 million subscribers and someone who seldom dabbles in politics.
 
But beyond the contradicting ideologies he pertains to have and the classless attempt at linking high-profile people who have nothing to do with him (which, again, might both be trolling of some sort), perhaps the single biggest indicator that this s.o.b. is an evil jerk (as if killing 50 people and wounding 40 others wasn’t enough), he also states his intentions behind the shooting.
 
In the manifesto, he says that his intention is “to spark a civil war in the United States by triggering crackdowns on the Second Amendment,” according to Breitbart News. He says he intends this shooting to lead to “fracturing” the U.S. along “cultural and racial lines.”
 
He intends to “create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political, and racial divide within the United States… This conflict over the 2nd Amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will eventually result in a civil war that will Balkanize the U.S. along political, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.”
 
The shooter also predicts his attack will lead to “calls for the removal of gun rights from whites in the United States… that is the plan all along.” He also states that, while he could’ve used a variety of methods for carrying out his terrorist attack, he chose guns “for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the effect it would have on the politics of the United States and thereby the political situation of the world… With enough pressure the left wing within the United States will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the U.S. will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. The attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S. along cultural and racial lines.”
 
All of this is what makes me think that, while much of this manifesto might be a troll to exploit the media, there might be some elements of truth to it.
 
Now, regardless of whatever ideology he says he has, whether he calls himself a fascist or a socialist while attacking communists and Marxists (which are all basically the same, but with slight differences), and while he appears to be a white supremacist all-the-while hoping white people in the U.S. will have their guns taken away from them, one thing is absolutely certain: his heart is nowhere near Christ.
 
The Left has already fallen for this guy’s trick of heavily politicizing this attack and may even see this as an opportunity to really move in on the 2nd Amendment (even though New Zealand’s gun laws are incredibly strict, so no new gun legislation enacted here would do anything either, not that the Left cares about that at all). So sadly enough, this poor excuse for a human being will likely be successful in further driving apart this country.
 
And it’s this precise desire (not to mention the fact that HE KILLED 50 PEOPLE AND WOUNDED 40 OTHERS) that tells me just how far his heart is from Christ. This is someone who literally wants to sow discord and chaos in the entire world.
 
While he does not like Muslims at all and calls them “invaders” on “foreign lands”, it’s clear to everyone who takes the time to even just skim the highlights of his manifesto that what drove him to do this was not mere Islamophobia.
 
He knew very well that a shooting in a mosque would horrify the Left far more than any other setting. I mean, New York and L.A. both upped security in mosques for a bit soon after the shooting took place. Now, I don’t blame them for having done it, it’s perfectly sensible. But when have you heard of them doing this when someone shot up a church?
 
Islam is the Left’s favorite religion, as evidenced by the fact that even in America’s deadliest shooting and what can only be considered to be a terrorist attack, the Orlando night club shooting, the Left was quick to not only blame the gun but also try and shift blame away from the shooter himself because he was Muslim. The media didn’t even dare try and call it a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, this shooter attacks two mosques and ABC News was quick to label it a terrorist attack.
 
There’s no doubt that it is, but the media and the Left will cover for Muslims more than anything else. The shooter likely knows this and that is likely the biggest reason for choosing them as his target.
 
As a result, the Left will likely be more willing to go after people’s guns so as to prevent something like this ever happening again (at least, that’s their story).
 
This attempt at gun grabbing, depending on how fierce it is, will definitely lead to an even bigger divide than what we already have.
 
Upon reading the highlights of the manifesto, particularly reading the parts about creating a divide and a fracture in America along cultural and racial lines, I can’t help but think the guy’s late for the party. Obama already did a pretty good job at dividing the nation along cultural and racial lines. We currently live in a society where being white is considered a bad thing and cause for discrimination, believing it to be some sort of justice for the centuries of white oppression over minorities (which were all largely caused by Democrats, but I digress).
 
This country is already heavily-divided along cultural, racial and political lines. In one corner, you have conservative right-wingers who love capitalism and see America as a beacon of hope, with liberty and justice for all. In the other corner, you have socialist left-wingers who love socialism/communism and see America not only as a mistake that never should’ve happened but as a threat to the progress of mankind and the planet itself.
 
These two corners are irreconcilable, in my mind. And to this shooter, it was easy enough to further fracture by committing this heinous act of terror and violence.
 
The ironic thing is that, upon literally writing these things down, he reveals his entire hand and it becomes easier to negate it… at least, in theory.
 
To sane people, they will read this over and think “okay, let’s just not politicize this and not have this guy get what he wanted, otherwise he’ll win.” But to the Left, they might see this (at least the ones who care enough to read it over) and they will think it’s the perfect opportunity to do just that.
 
After the Parkland shooting, many on the Left were up in arms (pun somewhat intended) about guns and a supposed lack of gun control in America (which likely wouldn’t have prevented this shooting anyway) and the divide further grew. Granted, part of the reason is that the FBI and Broward County Sheriff’s office basically ALLOWED for this shooting to happen in the first place, but the damage was done.
 
The Left shamelessly made that shooting to be their greatest asset. And they could do the same thing here. They won’t care that they’d be doing exactly what the shooter wants them to do. If they see an opportunity to strip freedoms and rights from people, they’ll take it.
 
I don’t know just how far they’ll go here, and I seriously doubt they’ll get anywhere near to abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but this does provide them with a stepping stone towards further growing their power.
 
Thankfully, the idiot shooter wrote this manifesto to tell us exactly what he planned and what kind of heartless monster he is (again, that’s without even mentioning the mere fact he slain around 50 people and wounded dozens of others). And yes, while I did establish that much of this was likely trolling the media, his racism and his intentions may be genuine. Certainly, division is what comes from this attack and he might know this as well. The fact that he acknowledges this will lead to division leads me to believe these intentions were real.
 
In any case, if the Left wishes to brand him as a right-winger, there is evidence against that. I wouldn’t necessarily brand him a left-winger either given what he wrote against the Left, but he’s definitely not a right-winger.
 
However, what I will brand him as is a heartless, Christ-less, evil man looking to exploit the racial divides in the world, taking up the mantle of a white supremacist (and he very well may be that anyway) and sowing discord with his evil actions.
 
I pray for the families of those slain and hope that the writing of this manifesto will lead to people realizing what he was doing and not seek to grant this sicko’s wishes.
 
Romans 12:21
“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.